Sitting of 22 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Read a Second time, and committed.

    EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

      WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Secure Accommodation (Juveniles)
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the current shortfall in the number of places available in local authority secure accommodation for juveniles whom the courts wish to send to such accommodation.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Under the present law, the courts have no powers to require that any juvenile should be detained in local authority secure accommodation either before or after conviction
    Dr. Jones: Is not it accepted that there is a shortfall of places available in secure units? Why do not the Government give local authorities the funding that they need to provide the places that have been identified as necessary? In Birmingham, it costs over £2,200 a week for each of the eight places that are provided and currently occupied and it is estimated that at least another 16 places are needed in the west midlands. Why do not the Government give that support? I have a letter from the local police who say that, as well as more secure units, they want to see more supervision of young people on bail and more support for offenders' families. If the Government are really committed to tackling crime, why—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has put her question.
    Mr. Howard: Local authorities have the powers that they need to provide secure accommodation. If Opposition Members think, as they should, that local authorities
    488
    should give greater priority to the provision of secure accommodation, they should make those representations to the local authorities concerned, many of which are now controlled by the Labour party.
    Dame Jill Knight: What plans does my right hon. and learned Friend have to ensure that staff in children's homes—even those in non-secure children's homes—keep a reasonable measure of control over the children in their care? Is he aware that some of the children cause absolute misery and mayhem to nearby residents?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has identified a particular problem which needs to be addressed. It is a problem which will be addressed to some extent when we legislate. as I hope to do at the earliest opportunity, to give the courts the power to make orders so that young, persistent offenders can be detained in secure accommodation.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is now two years since the Home Office promised additional secure places for juvenile offenders and not one of those places has been built? Will he also confirm that the revenue funding for such places has not even been agreed? Does he understand that local authorities, the police and local communities do not want to wait another two or three years before those places in secure accommodation and elsewhere are available? They want action now, as it is now that crime is being committed.
    Mr. Howard: The particular places to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are in the course of being provided. Why does not he address the question that I raised in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) a few moments ago? Local authorities have the power to provide secure accommodation and there are many examples, such as Leicestershire, where the Labour party has refused to open secure accommodation that was originally provided when those counties were under Conservative control.

    Rapists
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to deal with rapists.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Courts have been empowered to impose longer sentences on persons convicted of violent or sexual offences and to require that they should be supervised for longer periods when released. The Prison Service runs programmes for sex offenders aimed at tackling the roots of their behaviour and preventing reoffending.
    Mr. Nicholls: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he recalls that when a provision was introduced to enable the prosecution to appeal against over-lenient sentences, it was opposed by both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party? What does my hon. Friend think that the public should conclude about those who talk tough on law and order, but who shy away when they have the opportunity to turn the rhetoric into reality?
    Mr. Maclean: Time and again, the Opposition have voted against measures that we have introduced which have proved absolutely essential. Since we introduced those powers, the Attorney-General has referred 16 cases

    489
    in which people have been sentenced for rape and 12 of those sentences were increased by the Court of Appeal. Other cases are pending.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that there is serious concern about the bail conditions given to rapists? Is he aware that in parts of Nottinghamshire cases are taking about nine or 10 months to come to court either because of the incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service or because of a lack of funding? In that time, because of weak bail conditions, too many of those accused visit the areas in which the attack has taken place and they often abuse and harass those whom they are alleged to have raped. That is not good enough. The bail conditions must be tightened in such cases. It is the Minister's neglect in controlling the Crown Prosecution Service that is allowing such problems to occur.
    Mr. Maclean: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that it is the fault of the Crown Prosecution Service. I am, of course, aware of the concern about people who commit other crimes on bail, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of the provisions of the Bail Act 1976 under which bail can be refused in all cases if the court is satisfied that the person might abscond, reoffend, threaten witnesses or pervert the course of justice. That is what the law says. Judges and courts have the powers to deal effectively with anyone who appears before them and who might reoffend on bail.
    Mr. James Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case this week in a court in my area in which Judge Starforth Hill released on bail a person who was being tried for three rapes? He gave the man bail against the advice of the police and the man now resides in southern Ireland. There is no way in which we can get him back. Is that not a travesty of justice?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on that particular case at present. I merely repeat that the Bail Act, if it is enforced properly by the courts—we have circulars designed to draw the law to the attention of magistrates and judges—provides that if the court is satisfied that someone might abscond or reoffend, it does not need to grant bail. In each case, the decision is at the discretion of the courts and judges.

    Obscene Publications Acts
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to review the provisions of the Obscene Publications Acts.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the working of the Obscene Publications Acts.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We are not reviewing the central provisions of the present law on obscenity, but we are examining ways in which to make existing legislation work effectively. We continue to receive representations on the general subject from hon. Members and others.
    Mr. Winterton: A unique twinning, Madam Speaker.
    Does my hon. Friend agree with me and with the Prime Minister that the book "Juliette" by the Marquis de Sade, which glorifies child abuse and murder, is "truly horrific"? As the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the
    490
    Attorney-General have said that no prosecution is possible because no conviction could be guaranteed, will my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary come to the House as soon as possible to announce an amendment to the Obscene Publications Act 1964, something which is long overdue?
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: It is a very nasty book, but it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether to bring forward a prosecution. The law that my hon. Friend complains of explicitly states that it is the harm that the material can do that is the nature of the offence. I do not believe that there is any form of words that could improve the law to deal with the case.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend take time next Tuesday to watch "The Cook Report", which exposes the evil, secretive and lucrative trade in computer pornography? Will he tell the House what actions he intends to take to review the obsolete test of obscenity and also the Obscene Publications Act 1964, which forces the police to operate against the vile trade with one hand tied behind their backs?
    Mr. Lloyd: We are looking carefully and urgently at the subject of computer pornography. The systems that are on sale and that can be exchanged come under the present law. We are also examining whether self-constructed systems come under the law.
    Ms Lynne: Does the Minister support the introduction of custodial sentences for the possession of child pornography, because at the moment some people who possess child pornography are given minimal fines?
    Mr. Lloyd: The effect of the law in that area is one of the things that we are looking at and is at the top of our list.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister agree that the most pernicious form of pornography in recent years has been that which has been communicated through the telephone service following the Telecommunications Act 1984? Does he welcome the measures that have been proposed by the independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services and Oftel?
    Will the Minister also note that the pornographers are putting together a fighting fund which they reckon will total about £1 million to fight the proposals? Will the Government take note of that and, when the matter subsequently reaches a public debate, will they do something about it?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in the matter for a long time. The law is being examined with great care and the hon. Gentleman knows that the codes of practice are currently being revised also.
    Mr. Alison: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the test for obscenity—that the material has a tendency to deprave and corrupt—shows that, objectively, there is a fearful latent detriment in pornography? Since the test clearly is not stopping the damage of pornography, will my hon. Friend reconsider the proposition that there is no need to supplement the test with a further and more effective one?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have examined the law and there have been a number of private Member's Bills on the matter. My right hon. Friend clearly stated that the test is whether the material will deprave and corrupt, or do actual harm.

    491
    That is what the test is all about. It is essentially the same test as we have had since 1868. It was regarded by many people as over-effective for 100 years, but people now say that it is under-effective. What my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members must realise is that jury attitudes have changed. I do not believe that we can compensate for that by changing the wording of the law. We are willing to consider any suggestions for improvement.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that tinkering with the edges of law will not deal with the problem? While we recognise that the matter relates to the moral climate, is not it true that the Government and their advisers are not prepared to tackle the problem?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Government are anxious to tackle the problem. The hon. Gentleman should suggest a better test. The problem, as I have stated twice from the Dispatch Box, is that material that the hon. Gentleman and I and other hon. Members may think of as obviously harmful is often not thought harmful by juries.

    Offending on Bail
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding offending on bail; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: We receive representations from time to time; we share the concern about offending on bail. We have supported the Bail (Amendment) Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and we have introduced an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to give courts powers to increase sentences for those who offend on bail.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend confirm that by supporting that Bill, the Government have declared that they intend to deal with bail bandits, a subject which worries many hon. Members? Is not it the case that Conservative Members are convinced that my hon. Friend is endeavouring to deal with the problem, unlike Opposition Members, who have difficulty expressing a united opinion?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend comes straight to the point. We are determined to tackle those who offend while on bail. Bail is a right, but it is also a privilege. We cannot tolerate for much longer those who offend on bail, when there may be no good reason for them to do so. We have already taken measures. We keep the law under constant review. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions of sensible further improvements, I shall look forward to hearing them.
    Mr. Madden: What action is the Minister taking on a case that I have twice referred to the Minister of State of a Bradford man who had a disgraceful history of breaching bail conditions, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, was granted home leave and has since absconded? The prison authorities tell me that he would not have been granted home leave if they had been told of the breaches of his bail conditions. What action is being taken to ensure that such a disgraceful incident does not happen again?
    Mr. Maclean: We have revised the rules on home leave, but I shall be happy to receive the detailed information of that case from the hon. Gentleman and look into it personally.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to review custodial penalties for offenders under the age of 18 years.
    Mr. Maclean: The Government keep all penalties under constant review and propose changes when we judge that it is necessary. We have decided to introduce as soon as possible a new secure training order to deal with the hard core of persistent juvenile offenders for whom other court-imposed sanctions have failed.
    Mr. Coombs: In welcoming the secure training order, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that the peak age for offending in Britain is 16 for boys and for girls? Is he aware that the lives of our constituents are made miserable and inconvenient by the activities of a small minority of people who deserve custodial sentences because of the scale of their activities? Does he agree that the cautioning system in Britain, use of which has increased significantly in the past few years, certainly needs review so that adequate deterrence is provided in cases of burglary and other offences?
    Mr. Maclean: It is clear from my discussions with magistrates, judges and the police that there is a need for a secure training order for those 12 to 15-year-olds who have already been through all the community sentencing procedures and are still determined to continue in a life of crime. There is overwhelming evidence of the need for a secure training order, but there is deafening silence from the Opposition on accepting that need.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that if we are to have secure training orders and people in security, we must deal with the need for secure accommodation? The Minister says that there is no evidence that the Opposition are concerned about the problem. Will he acknowledge that in Leeds, where there are 27 secure places, discussions were held two years ago between the authority and his Department about the addition of 10 places? It was agreed that the extra places should be pursued. Yet no money has been produced by the Home Office, as it promised since that date. How can we have more people in secure accommodation when we do not have the places?
    Mr. Maclean: It is clear that the Opposition are dodging the point. Secure training orders are specifically designed for 12 to 15-year-olds who will be sent to units directly by the courts. The Opposition know—if they do not, they should—that the courts have no power at present to send to a secure unit directly anyone under the age of 15. Will the Opposition support the demands of magistrates throughout Britain to give them that power? Yes or no?
    Mr. Sykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that today in Yorkshire a 17-year-old youth has been convicted for his third joyriding offence in 18 months? Unfortunately, I cannot name him because of the absurd Criminal Justice Act 1991. Suffice it to say that when the arresting officer caught hold of him, the youth said that he was prepared to kill to make good his escape. That was no idle threat

    493
    because the young man has killed before. In 1991 he ran into a 57-year-old nurse in my constituency. When will my hon. Friend change the law so that eventually the punishment fits the crime, not the criminal?
    Mr.Maclean: Of course, while we are looking at the law on the sentencing of 12 to 15-year-old persistent juvenile offenders, we shall at the same time look at the law for other age groups, to ensure that sentences are proportionate to those in the younger age group. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed when we have concluded our discussions.
    Ms Ruddock: Is not the Minister failing to learn from past mistakes? Is he aware of his Department's own evidence that under the old approved school system the vast majority of young offenders had reoffended within five years and that children leaving approved schools had a reoffending rate that was 49 per cent. above that which would otherwise have been expected from their records and characteristics? He should take note of the consensus and demands of my hon. Friends that the present system needs to be better operated. Secure places should be provided by local authorities, where people can be detained close to their families and given support to try to reduce the reoffending rate.
    Mr. Maclean: It is clear from what we have said so far that the new secure training orders will be nothing like approved schools or borstals. The Opposition cannot hide much longer behind the myth that we are re-establishing old borstals; we are clearly not. Sooner or later, the Opposition will have to come clean. Will they vote for secure training units or not?
    The hon. Lady had better explain that to magistrates and to the police who have arrested 14-year-olds, some of whom have 30 previous convictions. Such youngsters have been through the whole range of community sentences and now the only other sentence for them is a secure training unit. The Opposition cannot ignore the fact that for a small number of young people community sentences are not appropriate.

    Police Officers (Injuries)
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been injured in the course of their duty for the last 12 months that figures are available.
    Mr. Howard: Information on the number of injuries is not held centrally. In 1992, 14,946 police officers were assaulted on duty in England and Wales.
    Mr. Evans: In the light of that response, I thank the Home Secretary for allowing the trials of the extended baton and telescopic baton throughout the country. Unfortunately Lancashire, where I live, is not an area where the trials are taking place. I have figures that show that in 1991 the number of police assaulted on duty was 439; last year, it was 466. That is an appalling figure. Once the trials have been completed, if they are as successful as I believe they will be, will the Home Secretary widely extend the issue of extended batons and telescopic batons and ensure that the police have the tools to do their duty of protecting the public against the criminal?
    Mr. Howard: I have made it clear that I am determined to ensure that the police have the equipment they need to protect themselves from the attacks and assaults to which they are increasingly subjected. I saw on Monday, in Poole in Dorset, a demonstration of the Arnold baton. I share my hon. Friend's hope that the evaluation that I have authorised will soon be successfully concluded, so that the batons that are currently being tested can be used more widely across the country and give the police the protection that they need.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Home Secretary recall that six months ago in my constituency, WPC Lesley Harrison was viciously attacked? Does he agree that the bravery shown by policewomen and policemen deserves our admiration and practical support? Given that more than 20,000 police officers came to Wembley this week and that in areas of difficult policing there is grave disquiet about the effects of the Sheehy report, will the Home Secretary take seriously their concern that the number of police officers will be reduced as a result of the report, leaving many communities under-policed?
    Mr. Howard: Of course, I understand and am aware of the concern that has been expressed. I have made it clear that I intend to consult the police and not confront them on the question of change; but change is necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look again at the report. He will see that, far from reducing the number of police officers available for policing duties, the object of the report is to increase the number of police constables on our streets.
    Mr. Shersby: In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's information about the number of police officers injured, will he assure the House that in the coming weeks he will work closely with the police staff associations to reach agreement on proposals for reform, which both they and he desire?
    Mr. Howard: I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have every intention of engaging in a constructive dialogue with the police over the next few weeks. The consultation period will not expire until the end of September; I have made it clear that I will listen very carefully to the views of the police and others, and take them into account before reaching any final decisions.
    Mr. Stevenson: Are not the police under tremendous pressure as a result of the appalling statistics revealed by the Home Secretary? The Sheehy report has led to a complete disintegration of morale, and the proposition that there must be a link between performance and reward has not helped. Will the Home Secretary now repudiate that statement and give the police a clear assurance that the basis of market testing in the Sheehy report is not acceptable to the Government?
    Mr. Howard: No. I will not prejudge the outcome of the consultation in any way. The Sheehy report was designed to strengthen the links between responsibilities and rewards; that strikes me as a thoroughly worthy objective. The report sets out one way of achieving it, but I will take into account any other suggestions. I intend the consultation period, which is currently under way, to result in fruitful and constructive dialogue with the police and all others with an interest in these matters.

    Asylum (Fraudulent Applications)
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made in preventing fraudulent applications for asylum.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): New procedures designed to deter bogus asylum applications were introduced in November 1991. Since then, the number of new asylum applications has nearly halved. The new Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act will also help significantly.
    Mr. Shaw: Conservative Members welcome the new asylum legislation. Will my hon. Friend join me in praising Dover immigration service for yesterday's highly successful raid on illegal visitors to this country? Will he confirm that one way of reducing the incidence of social security fraud would be to reduce the number of bogus asylum seekers?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that a number of bogus asylum seekers have been involved in social security fraud. There have already been 26 successful prosecutions, and a number of other cases are being investigated. One case involved a family of four from Zaire who had submitted more than 50 applications for income support and had been given 50 allocations of council housing. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the immigration service on yesterday's successful operations near Ashford.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Minister agree that reducing the time allowed for certain appeals against refusal of asylum to 48 hours is not only unfair and unjust, but a contravention of natural justice, resulting in judicial reviews, which in turn lead to yet more delay? When do the Government expect to meet their own pathetic target—set last November—of providing a safe haven for no more than 1,000 Bosnians? Or does the Minister consider such people, whom we see nightly on our television screens, to be nothing more than fraudulent claimants?
    Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as he has been told time and again, the selection of ex-detainees and other vulnerable people in Bosnia is a matter for the experts on the ground—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. After the weeks and months that he has spent debating asylum during the current Session of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman really should have learnt that the 48-hour rule applies to those who have made manifestly unfounded applications and have been detained at ports. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that by allowing such people to prolong their stay he would be delaying the consideration of genuine refugee cases in which people suffer genuine traumas.

    Citizenship
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were granted British citizenship in (a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c) 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: In 1974 and 1979 respectively, 69,657 and 29,500 people were granted citizenship of the United Kingdom. In 1992, 42,241 people were granted
    496
    British citizenship, excluding the number granted that status under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show that Conservative Governments operate firm and fair controls on immigration? Is it not the case that Opposition parties would abolish some of those controls, which at present reduce the flow of people coming into this country and ensure better race relations?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opposition Members have consistently opposed our legislative proposals and the Asylum Bill, which is now the Asylum Act. The Government will maintain their firm but fair immigration controls on non-EC nationals, and in so doing underpin good race relations in this country.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further proposals he has to deal with persistent young offenders; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: I intend to bring legislative proposals before the House as soon as possible.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. May I also—this may surprise him—welcome the initiatives that he has taken so far, particularly on behalf of the residents of the Saffron Lane estate in my constituency, who have been subjected to a great deal of criminal behaviour and hooliganism in the past few months? Does it cross his mind that a contributory factor to that criminal behaviour may well be the political thrust of the Government's policies over the past 14 years, which have emphasised selfishness and greed as opposed to collective action and responsibility?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first words that he uttered, but I must tell him that the rest of his contribution was absolute nonsense from beginning to end. What we must never do is obscure the difference between right and wrong. That difference is well understood by the vast majority of people in this country. Making such absurd accusations is an affront to ordinary, decent, law-abiding people in all walks of life throughout the country.
    Mr. Rowe: I remind my right hon. Friend that it is about 25 years since Lord Kilbrandon in Scotland made a constructive distinction between the principles governing the way in which the commission of a crime is regarded and the punishment or treatment that is required after that has been done. Will he therefore look again at the whole concept in England of the age of criminal responsibility, because many of my constituents find it quite intolerable that there should be an automatic assumption that some hooligans and young children are too young to be scooped up by the law?
    Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend is well aware, we propose to take measures as soon as parliamentary time permits to enable persistent young offenders to be detained in secure accommodation and to receive the education and training which I hope will lead to a permanent change in their habits of behaviour.
    Mr. Purchase: I, too, welcome the measures being taken, because many people in Wolverhampton are tormented by the level of youth crime, but it is nonsense for the Home Secretary to believe that Opposition Members do not wish to see the difference between right and wrong. The atomisation of society by him, his party and his leader, and the belief that there is no such thing as society, has caused the uprising in young crime. It is a disgrace. Measures need to be—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman. Does the Secretary of State wish to reply?
    Mr. Howard: It is utterly disgraceful that week after week Opposition Members get up and protest against crime when they voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and they continue to vote against the prevention of terrorism Act every time it comes before the House.

    Special Constables
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of special constables.
    Mr. Howard: Special constables play a valuable role in supplementing regular officers and strengthening the partnership between the police and the public. I have recently announced a new target of 30,000 special constables.
    Mr. Garnier: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. The chief constable of Leicestershire is making intelligent use of special constables and, as a result of the additional target that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced, will make even better use of them. May I commend to him proposals for parish constables, which will increase the partnership between the public and the police so that villages in rural areas can feel safer? May I also commend the proposals of the high sheriff of Leicestershire, Mr. Robin Murray-Philipson, for a Leicestershire crime beat scheme bringing young people together with the police—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Question Time is becoming a debating period. Members are asked to put questions to Ministers, not constituency cases. Has the hon. Member finished his question?
    Mr. Garnier: I was asking the Home Secretary to commend the high sheriff's Leicestershire crime beat scheme, which brings young people together with the police.
    Mr. Howard: I will certainly look at the high sheriff's proposal with much interest. I am grateful for the support that my hon. Friend expressed, in particular for the possible introduction of parish constables throughout rural areas. We have payed all too little attention to rural crime, which requires determined and effective action. I hope that parish constables will be able to play a part in dealing with it.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not likely that the target set by the Home Secretary will not be reached due to low morale among the regular police force following the Sheehy
    498
    proposals? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think it outrageous that he is proposing payment by results, short-term contracts and sacking policemen when they represent the thin blue line resisting the rising tide of Tory crime?
    Mr. Howard: It is hardly surprising that the hon. Gentleman was unable keep a straight face as he asked that question.
    Mr. Stephen: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on special constables, but does he accept that the majority of crime in this country is committed by the same small group of people in each police division, who are doing it again and again? Does he accept that we have to focus on those people and keep them locked away for a long time so that they physically cannot burgle our constituents' houses, steal their cars and rape their daughters.
    Mr. Howard: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I congratulate him on the measures that he has taken to give the prosecution powers to appeal against bail orders when they are inappropriate. I will always listen to the point of view that he represents.

    Sheehy Report
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions will take place with the police before any of the Sheehy recommendations are implemented.
    Mr. Howard: I announced on 30 June that full consultation would take place on Sir Patrick Sheehy's report. As part of the process, written comments on the report have been invited by the end of September. Before reaching my decisions, I intend to take full account of the views of the police and of others with an interest in these matters.
    Mr. Clapham: I hear what the Secretary of State has to say, but he must be aware of the massive opposition to the Sheehy report among all ranks of the police force, based on experience that payment by results and short-term contracts are a recipe for disaster in the force. Does he therefore agree that the way forward is to shelve the Sheehy report and to concentrate on developing a community police force based on a partnership between local authorities and the police?
    Mr. Howard: I am aware—it is a point of view that I have heard expressed by police officers up and down the country—that there is a widely recognised need for change. During the consultation period on Sir Patrick Sheehy's report, I propose to explore ways in which we can achieve lasting and beneficial change in the police service for the benefit of the police and of everyone who lives in this country.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that for every 100 recorded crimes only four alleged offenders are brought to court? Since it is the job of the police to bring offenders to court, surely it would be a dereliction of duty if the Government were not considering ways to make the police force more effective and efficient.
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who has identified the reason behind the various

    499
    proposals that we are considering. The police have been operating within an out-of-date framework and we must bring it up to date in a sensible way, after consulting and entering into constructive dialogue with them. That is exactly what I propose to do.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is it not a fact that the Government's position on the social chapter is totally at odds with the views and real interests of the British people? If the Prime Minister loses the vote tonight, will he do the honourable thing: resign, go to the country and let the people decide?
    The Prime Minister: That was a brave stab in the dark at the beginning of Question Time. I think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about the social chapter. Perhaps I may quote to him what the president of the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe has said of the social chapter that, if it were enacted, it
    "would result in the closure of many small and medium-sized businesses, creating even higher unemployment".
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to see that in his constituency or any other.
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures released yesterday, which show that retail sales are now at a record high level, are good news for British high streets and further evidence that our economy is recovering and that prosperity and confidence are being restored?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it is good news for everyone, not just retailers. Retail sales were up 1¼ per cent. in June, up yet again to another record level. and have been on an upward trend for more than a year. They follow a run of good economic figures and are further compelling evidence of the fact that we are coming out of recession into recovery, with sharply brighter prospects than many imagined some weeks ago.
    Mr. John Smith: Following the collapse of Astra Training Services less than three years after the privatisation of the skill centre network, what do the Government intend to do to clear up the shambles that privatisation has caused to skill training?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wholly wrong about the position of skill training in this country and about privatisation. One of the matters that the President of the French Republic
    500
    will wish to discuss with me next Monday is the success of our privatisation programme, as there are plans to introduce a similar programme in France.
    Mr. Smith: Bearing in mind that Group 4 recently delivered a prisoner to a museum instead of a court, does the Prime Minister think that it might be time to review the mania for privatisation?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like the Government to own everything, control everything and determine everything, but we believe in private enterprise, private ownership and privatisation, which has served this country well. Although the British Labour party does not like it, countries all around the world are following the privatisation trail blazed by the Conservative party in the 1980s.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government today face two problems—first, the budget deficit and, secondly, over-regulation, much of which comes from Europe and which is destroying many of our small businesses? Will he make an announcement that will help both those problems and announce a reduction of 10 per cent. in the number of inspectors, which would not only save money, but would show that the Government are serious in reducing the burden of regulation on business?
    The Prime Minister: I do not have an announcement to make of precisely the sort urged on me by my hon. Friend, but we are looking at regulation—domestic regulation, European regulation and the enforcement of regulation in this country—in order to reduce the burdens on businesses, both large and small. Regulation has got out of any reasonable context, there is a need for action, and we propose to take it.
    Mr. Ashdown: Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to allow the city of Sarajevo to fall to the Serbs?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of what I have said to the House on a number of occasions. He may be an enthusiast for putting British troops in the middle of Bosnia; I am not.
    Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's survey by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Lloyd's bank commercial service review, which show that in 180,000 firms throughout the country confidence and orders are improving, output is up and investment is being generated? Is that not a massive vote of confidence in Her Majesty's Government's economic policies?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I have seen that survey and I agree that its message is very encouraging. I am delighted that the good news seems to be shared by both service and manufacturing industries. They have gone to great efforts to shake off the problems of recession. It is now clear that economic recovery is under way—there has been no help from the Labour party, but recovery is nevertheless under way.
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Byers: Can the Prime Minister tell the House of any occasion on which a Government have ratified an international treaty against the wishes of the House of Commons? Does he agree that a Government adopting such a course of action would deservedly lose the confidence not just of the House but of the whole country, and would not such a Government rightly stand condemned for acting as an elected dictatorship?
    The Prime Minister: On the understanding that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a contemporary treaty, may I say that the Act carrying that treaty into law has been passed with massive majorities on Second and Third Readings, both here and in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Spring: When my right hon. Friend meets the French Prime Minister on Monday, will he congratulate him on the launch of the French privatisation programme? Will he assure him that privatised companies are better companies once the dead hand of state control has been removed?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view, which is increasingly shared by companies, countries and Governments in every part of the world.
    Ms Short: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that an all-party group of which I was a member went to visit the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation headquarters recently and were told that preparations are being made for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolution on safe areas, which only requires 8,000 troops and changes in the rules of engagement? That has not been done and Sarajevo will fall. Has not the Prime Minister allowed that to happen?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, we have had a substantial troop presence in Bosnia for some time. A large number of other countries said in the past that they may be prepared also to put troops into Bosnia. We have made our contribution. A large number of other countries were signatories to that particular Security Council resolution. I think that it is right for them also to make their contribution to the collective carrying out of that resolution.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the social chapter issue is a red herring and that if we sign up to Maastricht the European Court will have the power to impose the conditions on us, whether we vote in this House for them or not, and that therefore those people who do not want the social chapter conditions should vote tonight to try to defeat the ratification of the Maastricht treaty?
    The Prime Minister: This is one of those rare occasions when I am unable to share a view with my hon. Friend. I believe that she is entirely wrong and I hope that she will reconsider her position before 10 o'clock. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Save that for later.
    Mr. Patchett: Given that the Prime Minister has informed us of his official engagements for today, can he inform the House of his plans for tomorrow?
    The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to tomorrow immensely.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: My right hon. Friend will have seen yesterday's trade figures, which show that our exports to non EC countries have improved once again and are hitting record levels, and that our trade gap has narrowed for the fourth consecutive month. Are not those figures the clearest possible evidence of the underlying strength of British industry and of the rapidly improving strength of the British economy?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend is right, both on the specifics of exports and on the general point. [Interruption.] Exports to non-Community countries were up 15 per cent. last year. [Interruption.] That is a real credit to British industry.[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down now.
    The Prime Minister: That is a real credit to British industry. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House is using up valuable time. Members are waiting to put important questions to the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to see the support for British exporters. British industry is becoming more competitive and I think that British industry can take great credit for it.
    Mr. Barron: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he believes what he says about the social chapter? What do he and his Government believe will happen to this country if we endorse the social chapter? Does he believe that the Governments of the 11 other member states are mad?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I would put it in precisely that way myself. What I can do is to repeat what the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe has said about the impact of the social chapter. In case the hon. Gentleman did not hear, it said that it would
    "result in the closure of many small and medium-sized businesses, creating even higher unemployment."
    That is the view of every CBI employer group across Europe.
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Jill Knights: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the largest chamber of commerce and industry in the country is in my constituency, which is the centre of a vital industrial area, and that the opinion of the entire west

    503
    midlands industrial community is that we must stick to the principles that he negotiated at Maastricht and assure the industrial sector that we will not have the social chapter?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the business men in my hon. Friend's constituency share the views of business men
    504
    right across the country about the social chapter. They know that it would be a serious mistake, that it would add to costs, that it would cost jobs and wreck our competitiveness. It is not a chapter that is of any use to the British at present or in the future and it should not be part of British law.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the first week after the recess?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons(Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 19 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1993 (CM 2270).
WEDNESDAY 20 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). There will be—a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 21 OCTOBER—Proceedings on the European Economic Area Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 22 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on Northern Ireland issues on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be delivering his Budget statement—the first unified Budget statement, setting out the Government's tax and spending proposals together—on Tuesday 30 November.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for his answer, and in particular for giving notice of the date of the Budget.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that he was pressed last week, I think by members of all parties, for a statement to be made on assisted area status before the House rises for the summer recess. I am sure that he has not forgotten, and I hope that he has ensured that his colleagues have not forgotten, either.
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the very strong rumours that it has already been decided that the Local Government Commission may not proceed with a structural review of further tranches of local authorities once it has completed the first tranche on which it is presently engaged. Does he recognise that it would be extremely serious if Ministers encouraged the commission to take such a step, or if Ministers decided that the commission should take such a step, especially because, as I understand it, the timetable for the review of local authority ward boundaries, which are the basic building blocks of our democracy throughout local government and parliamentary and Euro-constituencies, would be reviewed only following the tranches which are already being dealt with on a structural basis?
It could mean that only Labour areas would have their structure reviewed, that only Labour areas in the first tranche would have their basic ward boundaries reviewed. Having had experience of the way in which the Government have blatantly gerrymandered local government boundaries in Wales and Scotland, none of my hon. Friends can be filled with confidence that it would be a sound way of dealing with the issue.
I therefore hope that the Leader of the House recognises that it is absolutely essential that we have a statement before the House rises if the Government have made such a decision, and that it would be an outrage if such a decision waited until the parliamentary recess.
506
We are pleased that the Leader of the House has given us the date of the unified Budget, but I remind him of the strong concern that we have repeatedly expressed about the failure to schedule a proper public expenditure debate this year. Members of all parties will want to ensure that, whatever procedures are adopted for debating the unified Budget and consequent economic measures, no time is lost to the House for a debate on economic issues as a whole.
Mr. Newton: In answer to the first of the right hon. Lady's three questions, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry is well aware of the need to make a statement on the assisted area map. I believe that he assured the House yesterday that he expects to make a statement before the recess.
Secondly, I assure the right hon. Lady that there is no question of abandoning the local government review process. My right hon. Friend is considering ways of improving the review procedure in the light of the work of the Local Government Commission so far. The objective remains the same, to secure an effective local government structure responsive to local needs, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend neither intends nor expects to do what the right hon. Lady, with uncharacteristic acerbity, described as gerrymandering, of which I have seen no suggestion. I shall bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the request for a statement.
Thirdly, I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for welcoming my announcement about the unified Budget, which, although it was no more than a confirmation of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee yesterday, was evidently helpful to the House. I note what the right hon. Lady said about timings. She will know that the Procedure Committee expects to make recommendations, and obviously we shall consider those with great care.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the fact that a great European city and a recognised independent nation are on the verge of extinction, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the Hosue tomorrow on what Her Majesty's Government intend to do to ensure that United Nations resolutions are properly imposed?
Mr. Newton: Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's persistent interest in such matters, which does him great credit, but I cannot immediately promise him the statement that he seeks. However, I can point out to him that you, Madam Speaker, have said that no less than three hours will be available to debate the situation in the former Yugoslavia during the Consolidated Fund debates next Monday.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House tell us what changes would be made to the business of the House in the first week after the recess if the Government lost the second vote, or indeed both votes, at the end of the debate on the motion tonight? As, despite the request yesterday by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, the Prime Minister has refused to reveal what legal advice has been given to the Government, and has also refused to tell the House what the Government believe the legal requirements on them are, will the Leader of the House, at least,

507
practise open government and tell us what the parliamentary options are, both before we go on holiday and when we come back?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman seems to be anticipating the debate that we are about to have. I could do no more than repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said both last Tuesday and last Thursday, which I thought was absolutely clear.
Sir Peter Emery: May I remind my right hon. Friend, in the kindliest terms that I can summon, that it is now over a year since the Jopling Committee reported? It is perhaps understandable that while we were debating Maastricht that subject could not be considered, but if it is still impossible for the Government to make recommendations, would it not be possible for the Committee's recommendations to be put to the House so that, for the benefit both of the Government and of the Opposition hon. Members could express their views on how much of the report should be acted upon, and in what way?
Mr. Newton: In my experience, there is no one more capable of being kindly than my right hon. Friend. and I am grateful for the way in which he put his question. He will know that I have been having further discussions with the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I cannot now pre-empt the outcome of that further consideration, but I note what my right hon. Friend has said, which is in effect a request for a debate soon after we return from the recess.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I endorse the request by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for a statement on the situation in Bosnia.
If the Leader of the House cannot give us a date on which the House will be permitted to debate the report of the royal commission on criminal justice, can he at least give us an undertaking that we shall be permitted to debate that report, as the rest of the nation has already done?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South about the position in former Yugoslavia, except to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. too, to the debate due to take place on Monday.
With regard to the royal commission, as I have said before on such occasions, the right course is for the Government to consider the report and to decide how to proceed. Obviously, that must include consideration of a possible debate.
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale): Will my right hon. Friend give us an idea of when we will debate the Sheehy report? May I have an assurance that it will be fully debated before any action is taken? It is essential to put that message across to the police forces of this country because some of them have the idea that we are going to implement the report lock, stock and barrel, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr. Newton: The answer to that is very much the same as it was to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). The royal commission report and the Sheehy report are not reports by the Government or conclusions of the Government. They are reports to the Government which the Government can, should and will carefully consider.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: May we have an assurance that the House will be recalled if the situation in the former Yugoslavia deteriorates to the extent that an internationally recognised country is finally erased with the immense suffering that that will entail for the Muslims, particularly in view of the fact that the Government have consistently misrepresented the view of the military both in Britain and at NATO about the feasibility of effective action in that country?
Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand when I say that I would not accept his suggestion that my right hon. Friends have made persistent misrepresentations of the kind he suggests—
Mr. Faulds: It happens to be true.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes that judgment; I do not accept it. It seems to me that that is the kind of point that the hon. Gentleman might seek to develop in the debate to which I have already referred twice.
Sir James Kilfedder: I know that the Government are sympathetic to the idea put forward by Unionist Northern Ireland Members of Parliament about the creation of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that important matter in the near future?
Mr. Newton: Not in the first two days of next week.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House had a moment to reflect on the worrying and delicate issues encapsulated in early-day motion 2352?
[That this House, noting recent publicity about Stella Rimington, Director General of the Security Service, recalls her central role in operations against the miners during and after the coal strike of 1984–85, in particular, her deployment of agents provacateurs within the National Union of Mineworkers, including Roger Windsor, Chief Executive Officer of the NUM 1983 to 1989, an agent of MI5 under Mrs. Rimington, sent in to the NUM to destabilise and sabotage the Union at its most critical juncture; notes that in 1984 he made contact with Libyan Officials through Altaf Abasi and staged a televised meeting with Colonel Gaddafi, causing immense damage to the striking miners; that Windsor's actions led to serious and expensive internal disputes, notably a £100,000 libel damages settlement as a result of a letter Windsor forged in the name of David Prendergast of the U.D.M.; further notes that in March 1990, under Stella Rimington's guidance, Windsor was the sole witness, paid £80,000 for his testimony by Robert Maxwell, behind allegations of corruption against the NUM leadership, published in the Daily Mirror, later proved to be entirely untrue; and considers that notwithstanding recent cosmetic changes to its image, the Security Service, including Mrs. Rimington, has been responsible for the subversion of democratic liberties in Britain and should be brought to account.]
Since the Government have insisted on making Mrs. Rimington so high-profile, may we have an independent inquiry into what the lady's role was during the miners' strike?
Mr. Newton: I sometimes think that that kind of question is quite a good illustration of the no-win position in which my right hon. Friends find themselves. As there is greater openness about those services, we are now

509
accused of having a high profile on the matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the director-general of the Security Service is responsible to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's question to his attention.
Sir Michael Grylls: As the Secretary of State for Transport will announce this afternoon that the Government intend to go ahead with the effective doubling of the M25 in parts of Surrey through my constituency and the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) which will have catastrophic and devastating effects on hundreds of thousands of homes, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the matter as soon as we return from the summer recess so that the House can consider the plan in detail because we believe that it has been considered only superficially?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's request in mind, but I can equally clearly make no promise at this stage.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Government's "taking stock" proposals promised many more meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee? However, over the past two weeks, when we would usually have half a dozen or so such meetings, we have had none. Does that not make a laughing stock of taking stock, or is the Secretary of State for Scotland in a huff because he was caught out attempting to gerrymander Scottish local government?
Mr. Newton: We have already had this rather silly point about gerrymandering made once today. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Scottish Grand Committee, he—perhaps above all the hon. Gentleman—will know very well that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is at this very moment seeking to advance the detailed consideration of the follow-up to his stocktaking proposals.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware, many representatives of the arts and sport are anxious to have the National Lottery etc. Bill on the statute book. The Third Reading debate in the other place will take place tomorrow. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, if amendments are made in the other place, there will be time to consider them as messages from the House of Lords on Monday and Tuesday of next week so that we can have the Bill on the statute book?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend correctly decribes what will take place tomorrow in the House of Lords in respect of that Bill. I cannot give him precisely the assurance that he seeks, but I have no reason to suppose that the Bill that he is anxious to have in effect will be seriously delayed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that the British people do not want a continuation of the fiddling around with local boundaries and reviews of that nature? The whole thing should be scrapped, and the Government should concentrate on providing jobs for people in the shire counties and elsewhere, including Scotland. What is needed in
510
Derbyshire, where not one deep mine remains, is assisted area status in order to provide jobs in the area. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman announce that a statement about assisted areas will be made, drop the local government reviews, and stop fiddling the boundaries and gerrymandering on behalf of the Tory party?
Mr. Newton: There seems to be some slight tension between the hon. Gentleman's request in relation to the reviews and that of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Leaving that matter aside, I see no conflict between the two points. We shall seek to advance the local government review and make the statement that I have already said will be made on assisted area status.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Opposition to debate employment opportunities on the first Tuesday after the recess so that I can point out what a tragedy it is that hundreds of jobs are to be lost in Dundee as a result of closure of the Timex factory? Following the Ford fiasco of a few years ago, does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsible trade unionists and Labour Members involved should be thoroughly ashamed of their job-destroying tactics?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes a point on which I am sure that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will wish to reflect. In that connection, I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that the subject for the Supply day debate on Wednesday 20 October has still to be announced. My hon. Friend's suggestion might be considered.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Leader of the House recall that, last week, he announced that we would debate London affairs on Friday 23 July and that, virtually as soon as it was announced, the debate was cancelled? Why was that decision taken? When can we have the London debate that he has been promising us for so long? Among other things, we could discuss bus deregulation, which was proclaimed by the Transport Select Committee as a leap in the dark, and the very interesting proposition that was put forward by the Secretary of State for the Environment about having an elected mayor for London. I would like to debate that issue because I have an ideal candidate in mind.
Mr. Newton: I see that the list of debates on the Consolidated Fund includes at least one debate in which points about transport in London might be in order. It might be reached at a rather inconvenient hour, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's energy and assiduous attention to duty will keep him in the Chamber.
Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon after the recess or even sooner to debate the recent Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on the greatly expanded role of the United Nations in peacekeeping and the major implications for this country's policy on that matter?
Mr. Newton: There is no doubt that that is a serious and important subject. The Government will carefully study the report that my right hon. Friend has mentioned. I will of course keep in mind his request for a debate, but I do not think that I can make a promise at the moment.
Mr. Peter Hardy: It is expected that, during the next few weeks, the Government will publish their proposals on changes in mine safety regulations. In view of the assurance that was given to the House by the President of the Board of Trade and echoed by other Ministers that the Government would take no action which would threaten the splendid safety record of our mining industry, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an adequate opportunity very soon after the recess to consider those proposals?
Mr. Newton: I will bear that in mind, and will also immediately draw the question to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As, following the unilateral decision of the European Commissioner Mr. Van Miert to reduce the percentage eligible for assisted area status, Her Majesty's Government have been obliged to submit a second list excluding five areas of Britain, including Southend-on-Sea, do the Government not think that it would be wise to have a debate when we return on the dangers of ceding more authoritarian power to Brussels bureaucrats, who are not answerable to anybody?
Mr. Newton: I think we have here an extremely ingenious attempt to pre-empt both the statement on assisted area status and the debate this afternoon. I will leave my hon. Friend to pursue those points on one or other of those occasions.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Leader of the House reflect on early-day motion 2364, in which it is stated that the chairman of the Northumbrian water authority has increased his salary by 18 per cent. over two years and been given a perk that will net him £160,000?
[That this House notes with concern the pay rises and perks given to the company bosses of Northumbrian Water Group; notes that the Chairman received salary and pension benefits of £102,000, an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year, the Director and Chairman-designate received £120,000 in salary, bonus, pension and other benefits and that he exercised his option to buy 58,475 ordinary shares in Northumbrian Water Group at a discount of £2·72p on the market value of each share, netting him a profit of £159,052 in addition to his salary and perks at a time when customers are struggling to pay a 9 per cent. increase on top of a 10·3 per cent. increase in water and sewerage charges last year; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that such blatant profiteering and exploitation of Northumbrian Water Group customers ceases forthwith.]
Is this not a disgrace, when the Government are asking the working people of the country to accept a 1·5 per cent. increase in wages? Where is the fairness in that in this society?
Mr. Newton: It is, of course, the case that pay in the private sector is a matter for companies and their shareholders. But it is very much the Government's view that they should follow the lead that the Government have set for the public sector and exercise restraint in agreeing salaries for directors and senior management.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the statement on assisted area status will fully reflect the seven discussions that I have had in recent months with Ministers at the Department of Trade and
512
Industry, and that Dover and Deal will receive favourable treatment despite the attempts by the Labour party to sabotage it?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's representations, which will have been delivered with vigour on behalf of his constituents, will have left their mark on my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Greville Janner: As the school holidays have begun, will the Minister be kind enough to assure the House that there will be an early debate on the safety of children in playgrounds? As so many playgrounds in so many parts of the country, including the city of Leicester, are dangerous and disgraceful, will he at least draw this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for whatever Department takes responsibility and ask for, at the very least, a statement in the House on this matter?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly do what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, but I presume that he has also brought this matter to the attention of the various local authorities in Leicester, which would seem to have the immediate responsibility.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Has my right hon. Friend seen from the Order Paper that statutory instrument 1626, which is designed to introduce regulations for sheep and suckler cow premium quotas, has been prayed against by a number of hon. Members? Is he aware that this regulation may provide for the transfer of quota from one farm to another with no compensation payable to the landlord? This is causing great concern among landowners, who see the value of their property depleted, and among tenants, who see landowners very reluctant to bring forward farms to let.
I appreciate that we cannot have a debate before the House rises, but may we have an undertaking from my right hon. Friend that, as soon as the House comes back, there will be a debate, either in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House, to remove the anxiety?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend any undertaking beyond saying that further consideration will be given to the point that he has raised. I must tell him, however, that, as I suspect he probably knows, the Government have used fully the discretion available within the regulations to include measures to safeguard the position of landlords. They do not have the power to introduce a scheme whereby tenants would compensate landlords for losses on land values resulting from the introduction and allocation of quotas.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Is the Leader of the House prepared to arrange a debate on two early-day motions, Nos. 2369 and 2370?
[That this House notes the grave allegations in Yorkshire Television's exhaustively researched investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, in which 33 people lost their lives in 1974, and notes in particular that the Garda Siochana rapidly discovered the names of eight suspects (based on eyewitness identification) all of whom were members of the paramilitary loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force Mid-Ulster Brigade based in Portadown, that 12 further suspects were identified based on intelligence reports (four of whom were former or serving members of the Ulster Defence Regiment), that all this information was passed to

513
the Royal Ulster Constabulary where two Special Branch officers investigated and confirmed the Garda list of suspects but were never allowed to interview or arrest the suspects, that Garda Commissioner Eamonn Doherty, believes that the bombers 'must have been helped' as no 'loyalist group could have done this on their own', that two of the suspects were paid informants of the British Army, that the British Army and MI5 also know the names of all the suspects, that the bombers were being 'run' by the Special Duties team, a group of SAS-trained undercover soldiers operating from Castledillon (under the cover of 4 Field Survey Troop), controlled by MI5 and led by Captain Tony Ball and Captain Robrt Nairac, that 4 Field Survey Troop were involved in cross border raids without political authorisation and that Nairac supplied the Portadown UVF brigade with arms and explosives and assisted in planning their illegal activities.]
They relate to the horrifying revelations in Yorkshire Television's investigation of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, which left 33 dead, and to the view of the head of the British Army's bomb disposal unit, Lt. Col. George Styles, who was awarded the George Cross for his work, that members of the British Army were using captured IRA explosives and detonating them south of the Border?
Mr. Newton: As I understand it, these are clearly matters for the authorities in the Republic of Ireland. Any investigation in the light of the allegations made in the programme to which the early-day motions refer is a matter for the Irish authorities and the Garda in the first instance.
Mr. John Greenway: As the House is preoccupied again today with the country's position in the European Community, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should bear in mind our special relationship with the United States? Will he ensure that, before the House rises for the recess, a special message of goodwill is sent to the tens of thousands of families in the mid-west of the United States who have been seriously devastated by the worst flooding in America in modern times?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that all hon. Members will want to express their sympathy for the difficulties—to put it mildly—being experienced by so many people in such a wide area of the midwest. I am glad to note that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is here: he can certainly ensure that the feeling in the House is conveyed to the American authorities.
Mr. Peter Hain: The Welsh Office is due to make a statement on the future of Neath and Port Talbot hospital before the recess. Can the Leader of the House find time for a statement to be made to the House on that matter? The previous Secretary of State gave a commitment that it would be a full district general hospital, but there are disquieting reports that it will be only an outpatient day hospital with all of the major surgical facilities transferred elsewhere. A statement should be made to the House so that the Minister can be questioned and challenged on that announcement, if it proves to be accurate.
Mr. Newton: I will draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. If such a matter, important though it undoubtedly is to the
514
hon. Gentleman's constituency, were the subject of a statement, we might well have nothing but statements in the House.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend consider scheduling a debate on the payment of large sums of money, in many cases, to criminals by the press, bearing in mind the return to this country of drug runners from Thailand?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend well knows that the Government deplore situations in which people make money effectively from the exploitation of criminal activities for gain. He also knows that there are great difficulties in framing legislative restraints. I am sure that he will wish to draw his feelings on this matter to the attention of the Press Complaints Commission.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on the reasons for the delay in the announcement of the closure of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station? Trawsfynydd has not produced a single watt of electricity for two and a half years at a cost of £80 million to the country and a delay in the plans for reskilling the work force. Why is there such harsh treatment for the coal mines and such gentle treatment for the set-aside nuclear power industry?
Mr. Newton: The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are a matter for Nuclear Electric. I understand that the company is carefully considering the implications of the decision for the staff of the station.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) has already raised in business questions the matter of the White Paper on the police and the Sheehy report. Will my right hon. Friend encourage my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to come to the House at an early date to accept the total opposition of the police service to the Sheehy report and announce that he is prepared to set up a royal commission into the police, their remuneration and their status in society?
Mr. Newton: Happily, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is by my side and will have heard the message communicated direct. He may also have had reports of the large meeting at Wembley stadium during the week.
Ms Liz Lynne: In view of the fact that my constituents in Rochdale are uncertain about the question of assisted area status, will the Leader of the House confirm or deny that the press have been informed that there will be a statement in the House tomorrow on assisted area status? If the press have been told, why were we not told first?
Mr. Newton: I have already made it clear on a number of occasions that a statement will be made before the recess.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the proposal to deregulate the Weeds Act 1959? That Act outlawed the cultivation of five species of weed, including ragwort, the spread of which is already seriously out of control. That is

515
causing great concern to country men and horse owners because ragwort is increasingly responsible for poisoning horses, and action needs to be taken.
Mr. Newton: It is fortunate that so many of my right hon. Friends are present today, and I note that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is sitting a little further down the Front Bench, nodded her head vigorously to me to communicate that she will reflect on what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen this month's issue of "Euro Briefing" from the Conservatives of the European Parliament, which calls for greater openness in the affairs of the European Community, especially the Council of Ministers? It recommends that what is decided in the Council of Ministers should be made available and that the votes should be detailed. Several answers to written questions have revealed that the policy of openness has started in our Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that policy should be extended so that the openness called for in that document is extended to everything that takes place in the House?
Mr. Newton: I have a lot of sympathy for the general request for openness in the Community. That was one of the main objectives of the British Government, during our presidency, at the Birmingham and Edinburgh Council summits. I do not wish to add to the points that were then made, except to say that I have been told that it is the hon. Gentleman's birthday and I would like to wish him many happy returns.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for the planned early debate on the defence estimate. I wonder whether we could have before we rise for the summer recess an emergency debate on the new 2,300 jobs that will be created by the Ministry of Defence in Dorset, not least because all those jobs are within easy travelling distance of Christchurch?
Mr. Newton: That certainly sounds a very helpful suggestion. I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend says. He may find some opportunity during the Consolidated Fund debate, for example, or during the debate on the summer Adjournment to make further reference to that matter.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland makes a statement to the House to guarantee that the report from the Argyll and Clyde health board on the blunders that were made concerning the smear tests on 20,000 women in the Inverclyde area will be released to the public and those women and that they will not have to wait for it to be sent to the inquiry? My hon.
516
Friend the Member for Port Glasgow and Greenock (Dr. Godman) and I are desperate to ensure that our folk get peace of mind by seeing that report as soon as it is printed and available.
Mr. Newton: It is, of course, everyone's desire to ensure that clarity and greater peace of mind are established on those matters as soon as possible. I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Leader of the House read again my excellent Bill, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Wales) Bill? Does he accept that it has been carefully drafted and that it has the overwhelming support of the majority of hon. Members who represent Wales? Is he aware that tens of thousands of people in Wales suffer from serious disability? I should like to know when my Bill might be debated in the House.
Mr. Newton: I believe that the hon. Gentleman might have to do his own research on how the Bill might be discussed again in the spill-over period. He will, of course, have further opportunities in the new Session to debate the Bill, if he wishes to take them up. He will know that, as a former Minister for disabled people, I share his aims, but we are not convinced that the Bill is the best means of achieving them.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate after the recess on the standards of conduct in public life so that we can discuss questions of procedure for Ministers? At least four Ministers are directors of companies in contradistinction to the requirements of the list of rules. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that security firms, secretarial firms and similar activities are not connected with family estates? There is no excuse for a Government who impose laws and tight rules on the poorest of the poor governing income support and all other aspects of life to be sloppy about their Ministers.
Mr. Newton: I commented on that last week. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman raises it again, unless he wants to engage in muck-raking. I shall not add to what I said last week.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate in Government time on the thousands of victims of holiday companies that collapse every week because of the Government's legislative incompetence? Will he ensure that there is an investigation into the collapse of Global Link and SFV Villa Holidays, which happened because of ministerial negligence?
Mr. Newton: I do not for a moment accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but I will, of course, draw his somewhat overheated statement to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Points of Order
4.7 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
I have given you prior notice of this matter which is in connection with the ruling which you gave yesterday and which is reported in columns 353 and 354 of the Official Report.
As you know, Madam Speaker, article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 does not apply to Scotland. Yet the ruling given yesterday seemed to imply that that Act was binding on the whole House. It is important that, before we embark on today's debate on the social chapter and the future of the Maastricht treaty, you give a clear ruling of the implications for the constitution of Scotland and for the constitutional legal position of Scotland in the context of that ruling.
The Bill of Rights defined clearly that parliamentary sovereignty in England existed in Parliament. The Claim of Right, the equivalent document in Scotland, which was passed one year prior, defined clearly that sovereignty lay with the Scottish people. The Act of Union of 1707 incorporated neither the Bill of Rights nor the Claim of Right—[Interruption.] Despite the noise from Conservative Members, there is an important constitutional point to which they should listen.
Those documents were not incorporated in the Act of Union. Therefore, in the context of Scottish constitutional law, we cannot be bound to a ruling that is based on the Bill of Rights of 1689 in the context of parliamentary sovereignty. I refer to a ruling made in the Court of Session in Scotland in 1953 when the matter was clearly spelt out in a case between John MacCormick and the Lord Advocate. The Court of Session papers of 1953 said:
"The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law … I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.
Your statement yesterday, Madam Speaker, indicated that English legislation was binding because it related to English courts of justice. Does that mean—this where I seek your clear ruling—that Scottish legislative rights, the Scottish legal system and the jurisdiction of Scottish courts can be ignored by this place? Surely, if it were so desired, the Scottish courts could seek separate and distinctive representations on issues pertaining to the Maastricht treaty and the social chapter.
518
I realise that it is not an easy issue for you, Madam Speaker, or for the House, but I seek the clear ruling that the statement did not apply to Scotland, that the ruling did not either implicity or explicitly suggest that Westminster is the English Parliament in continuation, and that the democratically elected members of Scottish constituencies should not be tied to an English system.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Before you gave your ruling yesterday, did you have regard to the terms of the case of MacCormick against the Lord Advocate and especially to the fact that the judgment was delivered by Lord President Cooper, who is renowned as an expert in Scottish constitutional law? If your ruling applies only to the English courts, does it follow that those who wish to challenge, as they have already sought to do in England, may opt to do so at the Court of Session in Edinburgh rather than in the High Court in the Strand?
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is this further to the point of order?
Mr. Flynn: Yes.
Madam Speaker: In that case, let us hear it.
Mr. Flynn: During business questions, Madam Speaker, we—
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to this matter?
Mr. Flynn: No.
Madam Speaker: In that case, let me clear up the matter. My statement yesterday stands complete. I have nothing further to add.
Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appeal to you as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers. As a Member of Parliament who represents a constituency outside London, you will be familiar with the fact that many of us have full constituency engagements on a Friday. We have just heard a suggestion in business questions that a matter of supreme importance to my constituency and to other constituencies will take place tomorrow: there is to be a statement on assisted area status. It has also been claimed that that information has been given to the press. Even this afternoon, that information has not been given to us. Why on earth can we not be given that important information at least at the same time as it is given to members of the press?
Madam Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, whether Fridays, Tuesdays or Thursdays, all sitting days are precious to me.

Treaty of Maastricht (Social Protocol)
Madam Speaker: Before we move to today's motion, I must tell the House that I have been made aware of an interest in the possible application of the House's sub judice rules to today's debate. The rule operates subject to the discretion of the Chair. It is by no means clear that any current case is directly relevant to today's proceedings, but to avoid any uncertainty, I wish to announce at the outset that I have decided not to apply the sub judice rule today.
A number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate, so there is a time limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm of 10 minutes. I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.11 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move,
That this House, in compliance with the requirements of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.
The debate we have in the House this afternoon is without precedent. After months of discussion, Parliament has passed the European Communities (Amendment) Act with huge majorities. In this House, there was a majority of over 240 on Second Reading and of 180 on Third Reading. In the other place, there was a majority of well over 100 on Third Reading and of 269 in the showpiece vote over a referendum. Rarely in recent history has Parliament shown its will so effectively. Today's debate is an attempt to frustrate that will.
I believe that ratification of the Maastricht treaty is in the interests of this country. I negotiated the treaty because I believed that it was in the interests of this country, and that is why I signed it. That is why I refused to ditch it or to change it, even though there was plenty of opportunity to do so over the past year. Let me set out to the House the reasons why I regard it as vital for this country, for the reasons do not just relate to what is within the treaty itself, but go wider than the treaty and relate to the general position in the European Community.
We took the decision to join the Community—the right decision, I believe—over 20 years ago. From the day we took the decision, across both sides of the House, it has often been a matter of controversy. Sometimes it has been bitter, sometimes it has flared up, and at other times, for a while, it has been quiescent. Always that schism between the parties has rested there, and it has damaged the influence that this country has been able to exercise within the European Community.
Too often, as a result of those divisions within this House and sometimes beyond it, this country under successive Governments—I make no party point—has allowed itself and its interests to be sidelined. If it had not been for those disputes, and if we had been able to play the full part in the Community that I believe we should have done, it might not have developed in the way it has., and many of the concerns that some hon. Members have might well have been dealt with.
In that period, we have had many successes in the Community. The British rebate was a great negotiating success. The single market was one of the greatest changes in the EC since its conception. The reform of the common agricultural policy, the enlargement of the EC—each and every one, in its own way, is a big issue that has affected every aspect of the EC. All of them were British successes.
520
It shows that we can win the arguments at the European table. Despite that, we have still not exercised the influence that we should have, or shaped the EC in the fashion that was possible.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to deal with serious matters rather than frivolous interruptions at the moment.
Too often over the years, the dominant political attitude has been to object to the ways others have wanted to develop the EC, rather than to set out our plans, our prospects and our hopes and then fight for them to deliver the type of community that is right for this country.
Many hon. Members are right in their opposition to the way in which the EC operates. Some of the ways that it operates need to be changed—I strongly support that. I want to see the EC reformed, as do my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members, but if we are to reform the EC, Britain must have influence in the EC. We will not have influence if we do not ratify the treaty that we have agreed after consultations in the House.
I did not initiate the negotiations. I have made it clear that I thought that they were premature, and I said so to our partners during our negotiations. I did seek to negotiate what I believed to be the best outcome for Britain. I did so within a remit I had obtained from the House, and after seeking the views of Parliament and negotiating within them.
I believe that, as a result of that discussion and debate within the House, it was right for me to decline to accept the social chapter—and the single currency without the express will of the House.
I believe that the events which have followed the conclusion of the negotiations have proved that judgment to be correct. As I have told the House before, in my judgment Europe is not yet remotely ready for a single currency, and the present economic circumstances across Europe mean that it cannot afford the ambitions of the social chapter.
The House and the Government must accept the obligations we entered into and that Parliament approved in the European Communities (Amendment) Act. There is a straightforward self-interested reason for this country why we must do that. If we fail to do that, no British Government will have influence in Europe for many years.
Europe is a market of vital interest to our companies, and to this country's future prosperity and future employment. If we wilfully throw away our capacity to defend our interests and promote our policies in that market, I believe that this country will pay a dear price for that folly in the years to come. I would ask every hon. Member—including some of my hon. Friends—to reflect deeply on that point before they vote this evening.
Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He has forcefully and clearly made the argument for our remaining within the EC in order to argue our case and develop our position. Surely the same argument exactly applies to the development of social policy. How can this country influence the development of European social policy by opting out?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government accept that there is a social dimension to the EC. We have the best implementation of the social dimension of any European country. Perhaps if Opposition Members were better informed, they would not talk such rubbish so much of the time.
I know the hon. Gentleman's affection for Europe, but I say to him that a good European does not accept every piece of nonsense from Brussels just because it has a European label. If we believe that the social chapter is bad for employment—and I do believe that—then it is right for us to argue against it, and to try to persuade our partners to argue against it also.
I believe that that is what we are doing, and increasingly in Europe, businesses and employers are saying what we have said in this country and what I have said from the outset—the charter will destroy jobs across the EC.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: I should like to make a little progress. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
For the first time in 20 years, we are beginning to see a material move in the European Community agenda in the direction that Britain has long sought. It would be absurd for us to throw away our influence in the Community at this moment. We are seeing enlargement. We are seeing increasing moves towards the repatriation of responsibilities in this country—I hope for concrete progress on that in December. We are seeing proper budget control both within the Commission and right the way across the Community.
The European Community will continue to develop, whatever else may happen. But we need to influence the way of that development and to see that it moves in a way that is congenial to the British interest.
I want a wider European Community. I regard the present Community as but a fragment of Europe. That is why I wish to see the European Free Trade Association countries join, and a little later, our old friends in central and eastern Europe. The wider that we can spread the European Community, with a free market concept not only in economic terms but in military and security terms, the more we shall be able to hand a glorious bonus to the next generation that we should not throw away.
So I want that wider Community—a free-market Community, a Europe with the minimum necessary centralisation, a Europe that exercises more powers through the elected Governments of its member states and fewer powers through unelected commissioners, a Europe in which national Governments exercise undiluted control over genuine domestic policy matters from national elections to our education system, from health care to religion. That is the sort of Community that has been our agenda for a long time, and we are beginning to make progess in encouraging others to support the development of that sort of Community.
We seek a Community that emphasises co-operation between Governments, not imposition from the centre. We seek a Community where member states freely decide the agenda and the outcome. We seek a Community which limits common rules and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to matters such as free trade and free competition,
522
where they are genuinely necessary for any level playing field to be established. That is the Community that we seek to develop and shape.
However, we can do that only from the inside. If we are inside the Community fighting for that with allies elsewhere in the Community, we can build properly in the interests of our future. It is a process that we can take much further as a fully committed member of real influence.
Mr. Benn: I have listened intently to the Prime Minister. Has it occurred to him that he can do the things of which he speaks only if he carries the full-hearted consent of the British people? He has the power through the House of Lords and the House of Commons, with a majority, to force the treaty through and ratify by the prerogative, but he has absolutely failed to tell the British people that they have any role in the matter, any interest in the matter or any right to determine the matter. As a result, he is carrying into the Community the establishment of Britain but not the British people. He will pay a heavy price for that, and so will the Community.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has been a passionate opponent of much of the Community for many years. He has not changed his views, and I respect him for that. He spoke in the House the other day of the rights of Parliament in this House. We are a parliamentary democracy. Decisions such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers should properly be taken in the House, and are taken in the House.
I do not want to see either a centralist or a federalist Europe. I mean federalist in the sense in which we refer to it, not in the sense in which other countries refer to it. They mean something different by it. Yet when I say that to some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, they are apt to say to me, "What about this country or that? There are federalist countries in the Community." That is true. There are. That is why we need influence and allies in Europe to build the sort of European Community we want.
What is the alternative to that approach? To leave the Community? Very few right hon. or hon. Members would go into the Lobby for that proposition, today or any other day. What is the other alternative? To stand aside and let other people run the Community in a way of which we would not approve? That is hardly the right way to exercise influence in the Community.
I have never understood why so many people who claim to be the most pro-British—whichever party is in government—have the least faith in our arguments and our capacity to prevail in the European argument.
Mr. Cryer: This is not a frivolous point. One of the threads of the Prime Minister's argument is that, unless we become enmeshed more deeply in Europe through the Maastricht treaty, we will not have any influence, and that the differences between political parties are inhibiting that influence.
On one matter there has been consent between all the political parties—the common agricultural policy. It is wasteful, costly and out of control. That has not changed. The reforms that the Government have instituted are costing more. The food mountains are growing; they are imposed on world food markets and are damaging developing nations. We have not done a thing to change it, and we cannot.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that we have not yet gone far enough, and I share that view; I think that there are further reforms to be made to the common agricultural policy. Which way are we most likely to get them? By standing on the sidelines and throwing stones at the Community, or by being inside, seeking allies in other countries?
There is only one way in which we could find ourselves with the centralist, federalist Europe that we do not want, and that would be to sideline ourselves, through our own efforts, and let other nations determine the future development of the Community. That would be a folly of historic proportions for the country and the House. That is why we need to seek allies in the Community, and why we need to honour our obligations and to ratify the treaty that Parliament has approved.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and I do not differ on the importance of the treaty, if he stands by what he said some time ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht Treaty."
We have seen what the right hon. Gentleman has done over recent months, and what he will seek to do this evening. But it is a matter of huge importance to this country that we honour the obligation that we entered into after consulting the House, and then continue to build the Community that we wish to see.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Prime Minister emphasised a moment ago that we are a parliamentary democracy. Notwithstanding his own feelings and those of his Cabinet on the social chapter, if the House decides to support the Opposition amendment in favour of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister, as a democrat, accept that resolution and implement it?
The Prime Minister: I expect that the will of the House will be to support the Government. If by some mischance that were not to be the case, we would make our position clear at the conclusion of today's business.
Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend knows that, for many years, I have opposed the social chapter because of the effect that it would have on companies such as ICI in Stowmarket, which is in my constituency. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to oppose the social chapter as strongly as he can. I will be voting against the social chapter and in support of the Government in the Lobby tonight. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: I hope that the gesture of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is intended to indicate that we have one hon. Member on our side, and nothing else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) referred to ICI. ICI is one of the biggest employers in the country—[Interruption.]—and provides jobs in the constituencies of many of the hon. Members who are shouting at me. Its chairman, Sir Denys Henderson, has said:
"The Prime Minister is right to seek ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and, equally, it is vital that he continues to insist on the Social opt-out provision which he successfully negotiated last year."
That is the view of a business man whose company will employ many thousands of people in the constituencies of many hon. Members who are contemplating voting for the amendment.
Mr. Derek Enright rose—
The Prime Minister: I should like to make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The Opposition amendment seeks to impose the social chapter on us. I believe that it would be profoundly damaging to jobs and growth in this country, as do business men—although, having quoted Sir Denys Henderson, I will not detain the House with a large number of other quotes that I could offer to that effect.
There is no true majority for the social chapter in the House. It is wholly opposed by those who understand the economic damage that it would cause. There is an alliance of Members, for differing reasons, who may seek to come together and vote for the amendment, but it is not an alliance based on any conviction whatever.
My hon. Friends are aware of the deficiencies of the social chapter, yet I know that some of them are tempted to vote for the Labour amendment or against the substantive motion. They do not believe in it, but they have convinced themselves that it will prevent ratification of the Act.
Other hon. Members may have considered voting in a similar way. They, too, know and understand in many cases the damage of the amendment. They do not want more unemployment and they do not want a more centralist Community. I hope that those Members will reflect again on the cynicism of such a vote, and on the damage that it will do to this country.
Parliament is no longer debating the merits of the Maastricht Bill. The Bill is now an Act and, in due course, the treaty will be ratified. What Parliament is debating is whether we should negotiate a new treaty to add Britain to the social agreement. The treaty in the Maastricht Bill—the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—is now law, as the House well understands. Royal Assent has been given to the Act, so the treaty will be ratified. Seventy-one separate votes in favour of the Bill should not be frustrated by one parliamentary motion expressing an opinion to the contrary.
The House knows that to vote for the Labour amendment today is a cynical and unscrupulous vote which does not represent the true will of the House. It is an alliance of different parties with different interests, voting for the same amendment for different purposes. In any genuine free-standing vote in the House, the social chapter would be defeated, as any Member of the House knows. As the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal Democrat party has said:
"The social chapter opens the way to European-wide collective bargaining arrangements. They are wrong for this country's future and contrary to the Liberal party's belief in decentralising wage bargaining. It is an approach that failed in the 1970s and one that could not work in the 1990s. It is too costly, too inflexible and too rigid"—
and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to vote for it tonight.
Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps he would like to know the facts that made me change my mind and support the Government tonight. A manufacturing company in my constituency has interests in Europe but is now considering closing down those interests because the costs imposed by the social chapter, and will be bringing those jobs back into this country and into my constituency. On that basis, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that there was no way that I could support the treaty chapter.
The Prime Minister rose—
Sir Peter Tapsell: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his latest convert?
The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to accept a sinner returning home. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) back supporting the Government.
The Opposition amendment is a stratagem by an Opposition who have lost their principled concern for the Community. They are seeking solely to embarrass the Government, and a small number of Back Benchers want to obstruct the treaty. Anyone who is concerned with the interests of this country would regard the attitude of the official Opposition as incomprehensible, and that of the Liberal party, given its previous statements, as, frankly, contemptible.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Since the Prime Minister has for, if I recall, the third or fourth time quoted my words—incidentally, quoted words that were uttered before the treaty was signed—may I say to him that his speech so far has been a most passionate and, if I may say so, effective statement about why it is important to be inside European institutions helping to shape them, not outside suffering from them.
I do not understand how the speech that he has given so far, which is about being included in European institutions, can be used to justify an opt-out from European institutions. It is entirely true that my party and I have reservations about the social chapter, just as the Prime Minister has reservations about the Maastricht treaty, but he has argued that it is in our country's interests to be inside the treaty changing them, not outside complaining about them.
What applies to the Maastricht treaty also applies to the social chapter. If the Prime Minister genuinely believes that Britain's interests are served by being within Europe shaping its institutions, why is he recommending to the House that we should be outside complaining and suffering from them?
The Prime Minister: I recall going fishing many years ago when somebody caught an eel. "My," they said, "look how it wriggles." Wriggle though the right hon. Gentleman may, the quotes that I have used support my case and not his—as, since the right hon. Gentleman tempts me, does this one:
"The action Labour is taking will prolong Britain's uncertainties about Europe, delay inward investment, delay sterling recovery … and lose jobs. I am not going to vote for Labour for one night of fun at the Government's expense and ask the British people to pay in more lost jobs."
Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that or not?
Mr. Ashdown: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman, and his party, believe that. I remind the Prime Minister that, were it not for the votes of our party, there would be no Maastricht treaty before the House. I remind him that our position was then, as it is today, that, if it is a question of ratification of the treaty, there is no doubt where our votes stand, but this is a question of whether Britain shall be inside the social chapter of the treaty or outside. Our view consistently has been that we should be inside, and we shall express that view tonight.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement of immense significance, for he and his
526
party were asking earlier about the will of the House. If the Labour amendment is defeated and the main motion is now laid before the House, the only conclusion from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that he will be in the Government Lobby on the main motion. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and I invite him to intervene again if he wants to corrrect me.
Mr. Ashdown: Let me make it clear to the Prime Minister that, if the circumstances he describes arrive tonight, we shall continue to vote to express our wish that the social chapter should provide benefits to Britain and to Britain's work force, which has nothing to do with ratification of the Maastricht treaty, as the Prime Minister knows full well.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman becomes more ludicrous by the intervention. By that time, the amendment will have been lost. The party that talks about the will of the House, within seconds of having seen that amendment lost, would seek not to vote with the logic of its argument. How like a Liberal. Usually it takes a day for them to change their minds; this time it is rather quicker.
Mr. Simon Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. If he thinks back to the story of the young boy fishing, does he recall that not only is an eel "one that wriggles", but that eels are excessively slippery? [Laughter.]
The Prime Minister: This is becoming more fun than I had imagined.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding what might happen if we were to adopt the social chapter, this country's experience with the European Community has taught us that it has many ways of destroying jobs? That is shown by the fishing industry, which is practically on its knees, and by the meat processing industry—the latest to be decimated by European regulations.
During all the years that I have run a small business and other firms have come to me with their problems, European regulations have consistently destroyed jobs in this country. The idea that we will be able to control the European Community's imposition of those regulations on employers in this country is pie in the sky, and the triumph of hope over experience.
The Prime Minister: In that case, my hon. Friend should be in the Lobby against the social chapter this evening. As a small business woman, my hon. Friend will know that 60 per cent. of our exports go to the European Community, and that a massive amount of inward investment comes to every part of this country partly because of our membership of the European Community.
Let me turn directly to the social chapter. Through qualified majority voting—not unanimity—the Community would have the power to determine social and working conditions. The social chapter would allow the Community to restrict part-time work, whether or not we agreed in this House. It could set a rigid framework for rules and conditions of employment, which would replace the rules developed in this country, and few areas, if any, would be exempt. Trade unions across Europe could forge

527
deals and translate them into Community law, over the heads of individual workers and without the involvement of the British Parliament.
Mr. Ashdown rose—
The Prime Minister: I will spare the House another quotation from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
Above all, the social chapter would mean that many who are now employed would be likely to become unemployed. Many without jobs would stay without jobs. The main right that workers would get would be the right to become unemployed.
I strongly support our membership of the Community, but I support a Community which does not intrude into areas that are properly the domain of the member states. That, I believe, is what the social chapter does. There is already concern across the House, not just on the Conservative Benches, at the Commission's attempts to use health and safety powers for social legislation. We will oppose any abuse of those powers. We shall, if necessary, challenge the Commission's legal base—as we are doing over the working time directive.
In the social protocol, through the opt-out that I negotiated with the consent of the House and a massive majority to do so, I have preserved the right of the House to decide. Yet, in the amendment to the Government's motion, the Opposition seek to remove that right. They are supported by the Liberal Democrats. On the social chapter, as on defence, value added tax and much else, the Liberal Democrats say one thing and do another. They change their principles from doorstep to doorstep, week to week and issue to issue.
This week, the hon. Members for Holborn and. St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) were both parroting the facile proposition that, without the social chapter, Britain would have a sweatshop economy. Good slogan; rotten argument. The Labour party says it. So does the Liberal party, naturally. That is nothing surprising—they are usually indistinguishable, and usually both wrong.
The truth is that Britain has the best health and safety record in Europe, the best occupational pension scheme in Europe and the best system for caring for vulnerable people in Europe. Rather than talking such nonsense, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should talk to business and learn what he is talking about.
Business knows that the Community must compete or contract. If we add to social costs, we will not compete and we shall contract. We shall lose jobs in the short term and the long term. The one certain impact of the social chapter is that jobs will be lost and unemployment will be worse. That is what is at stake.
Is it worth it? Go and ask our industrialists. Will it help them to grow? Will it pay high wages? Will it guarantee jobs? Ask good investors whether the social chapter will attract them to Britain. Listen to the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the British chambers of commerce and the Institute of Directors—every single British organisation. They know that playing games on the social chapter is a dangerous game with the British economy. Everyone knows, except Opposition Members who would impose those burdens on British industry and the British work force.
528
Uncertainty about Britain's commitment to the Community is damaging to the country. It would undermine our standing, our influence and our national interests. That uncertainty undoubtedly will arise if Parliament does not now implement the Act that we have approved in Parliament. It must clear the way for the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. I believe that the treaty embodies the genuine will of a parliamentary majority, not the will of a coalition of disparate minorities simply to obstruct.
As the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said:
"we should not consort with"
people
"who … are just completely, fundamentally anti the European Community."
I hope that he stands by that.
During the past few years, Britain has had an increasingly strong voice in the Community. As never before, we have influenced its future direction. So long as we remain a fully committed member, we can have an even stronger voice in the future.
That does not mean accepting everything wanted by our partners. It means being in there in the Community; arguing, debating, shaping the future of our Community and carrying alliances with us. Europe is beginning to move in our direction. In France, in Germany and in Britain, a large majority looks not to a super-state, not to a united states of Europe, but to a Europe of nation states. Those states co-operate closely and enjoy a single market embracing 340 million people, but they retain their identity and sovereignty.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will know of my strong opposition to and reservations about the Maastricht treaty. I have been greatly encouraged by what he has said about how he envisages Europe's future and the influence that he can bring to bear on Europe from within Europe. In his speech this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend help me by assuring the House and me that this country will not move towards a single currency and return to the exchange rate mechanism as long as he is in power? Will he assure us that we in this country, who are proud of our sovereignty, integrity and place in the world, will be able to continue to have control over our foreign and security policies?
The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly said to the House on a number of occasions that I do not envisage that we shall be able to move towards a single currency—a matter on which the House makes the decisions—in anything remotely like the time scale previously set out. That is increasingly becoming the view of other people. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has said on several occasions, there is no prospect of our returning to the exchange rate mechanism in the near future, as the conditions are simply not right. I do not envisage that they will be right for some considerable period of time.
Britain's interests demand that we play a leading part in the Community. Common sense demands that we retain the freedom of action which I secured in signing the social protocol. That is why the Government are determined to ratify the treaty I signed and to oppose last-ditch efforts to delay or distort it. It is a matter of national interest that we proceed in that fashion, and it is upon that basis that I ask the House to put aside and reject the Opposition amendment, and to adopt the motion.
4.54 pm
Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should not deposit the Articles of Ratification of the Treaty of European Union with the Government of the Italian Republic until such time as it has given notification to the European Community that it intends to adopt the Agreement attached to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.
The Prime Minister made a curious start to the debate when he complained about the fact that we were debating the resolution and the amendment at all today. We are having the debate because of section 7 of the very Act to which he drew attention. He claims that the Act has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, which is certainly true—it has received Royal Assent. Section 7 makes it clear that the Act cannot come into force until the House of Commons comes to a resolution.
The Prime Minister described the debate as if it were an irritation to the Government—a devious ploy by the Opposition. However, the debate is a requirement of the Act of Parliament which he used to justify most of what he said. In addition, when discussing the Bill in Committee, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government had no difficulty in accepting new clause 74—which became section 7 of the Act. The Foreign Secretary said that the Government accepted the challenge presented by the proposals contained in the new clause. On 22 April he said:
"It is reasonable that the House should want the opportunity to vote on the principle of the social protocol." —[Official Report, 22 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 548.]
I have discovered why the Foreign Secretary is not winding up today's debate. It would be too inconvenient to have a Government apologist who had agreed to the procedure which we are now adopting speaking alongside a Prime Minister who is seeking to condemn it. It is nothing other than a requirement of the Act which both Houses of Parliament have passed, but it gives the House the opportunity which the Government sought to avoid in Committee—a vote on whether we should have the social chapter and the social protocol as part of the British version of the treaty.
It took the Prime Minister a little while to get round to it, but once again he today advanced the startling proposition that measures of social protection which are thought to be desirable by all 11 of our partner nations in the European Community are in some curious way a threat to British prosperity. As the argument has continued throughout the Bill's consideration, the Government have persistently sought to misrepresent the content and effect of the social chapter provisions. A deliberate campaign of misrepresentation by the Government has reached new peaks of exaggeration as each day passes.
Therefore, it is vital for the House to consider what the social protocol is and what it is not. The other 11 states have agreed that there should be a modest extension of the Community's competence in social affairs—matters such as the protection of the health, safety and working conditions of people at work, workers' rights to information and consultation, and equality for men and women in relation to work opportunities and treatment at the workplace. The argument is all about those sectors where qualified majority voting applies.
There are other extensions of competence to social security and social protection where unanimity would still
530
be required. There are sectors—which the Government have consistently failed to acknowledge—which are specifically excluded from the agreement. They include pay, the right of association and the right to strike.
Sir Cranley Onslow: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a man who is concerned about unemployment—he has often told the House that. Will he tell us straight that he is convinced that the social chapter will not cost a single British job? If so, can he give the calculations on which his belief is based?
Mr. Smith: I am wholly convinced that adopting the social chapter in this country will improve, rather than undermine, employment opportunities. What is more, I shall develop the argument as I proceed with my speech.
I shall remind the House just what the social protocol is about. I do not make any enormous claims for its proposals, which are fairly modest. But the Government say that the proposals are a sinister threat to our economic future, a deadly plot by the Brussels bureaucrats to destroy jobs and economic growth from which, in the nick of time, our heroic Prime Minister has rescued us all.
The irony of the Prime Minister posing as a job protector will not be lost on the millions of people who have been victims of the economic policies for which he has been responsible as Chancellor and Prime Minister. That self-styled saviour of jobs and growth has the worst record on jobs and growth of any British Prime Minister since the war.
It is when one examines the provisions of the social protocol that the absurdity of the Government's claims is revealed. In what sense and in what way does the improvement of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety or the improvement of working conditions impede economic growth? How on earth can equality between men and women in labour market opportunities and treatment at work be considered economically harmful in a civilised, modern state?
Mr. Phil Gallie rose—
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way.
It becomes even more absurd when one appreciates that the purpose of the agreement is to have similar rights and opportunities in every Community country to create a level playing field of social opportunity. We hear much about level playing fields from Conservative Members who mention them nearly every day in the Chamber. It is odd that they will not adopt that concept in relation to the rights of working people, and men and women.
That concept is fully understood by the rest of the Community, which is why all the other 11 member states readily agreed to the social charter of 1989 and the social action programme that flowed from it. It is why they have consistently resisted British Conservatives' attempts to prevent further progress in the social sphere. They agreed to the protocol because they all understand what the British Conservative party is incapable of appreciating—that economic success and social progress go hand in hand.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose—
Mr. Gallie rose—
Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is going to become a nuisance, so I shall give way to him now.
Mr. Gallie: I realise that it is a long time, if ever, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman participated in the industrial scene. Will he therefore take it from me, as one who has recently come from industry, that the health and safety issue is a preoccupation of British industrialists these days and is already considered to be of prime importance?
Mr. Smith: I had not, I must confess, envisaged the hon. Gentleman as a British industrialist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Nor do I think that he was. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why industrialists in every other Community country do not understand it in precisely the same way? I should like to know—
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this point.
I should like to know why the hon. Member for Ayr only ever talks about employers. Why does he never talk about emloyees?
Mr. David Hunt: Earlier this month the director general of the Confederation of British Industry said—I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will concede this—that
"Every single employer group, like the CBI, in Europe, in Germany and in France are against the social chapter and only our Government has actually had the courage to say that we don't want any part of it."
Mr. Smith: It will come as a matter of total astonishment to this House to hear that a bunch of Tory business men say that they are on the side of the employers. [Interruption.] What is more, if the Secretary of State for Employment wants us to have the evidence from Europe, why does he not quote what was said by the general secretary of UNICE, the employers' organisation in Europe, which wants the social chapter to be incorporated?
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Perhaps I can help the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The chairman of the European Employers Federation, Mr. Ferrer, who comes from a socialist country that believes in the social chapter, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but that has an unemployment rate of 23 per cent., turned up at the last European Social Affairs Council and begged Ministers not to go on introducing legislation of this kind which destroys jobs.
Mr. Smith: I shall quote to the right hon. Gentleman the precise remarks of the general secretary of UNICE, the employers' organisation, on precisely this subject. [Interruption.] I hope that we are not going to disregard the general secretary, who was appointed by UNICE. The right hon. Gentleman wants to pick the remarks that he agrees with and ignore all the others.
Mr. David Hunt indicated dissent. [Interruption.]
Mr. Smith: We should make more progress if Conservative Members were to calm down a little. They get very excited when remarks of the employers are quoted, but they never think of consulting the employees about any of their rights. The general secretary said:
532
"If we look at the costs of employment only or social costs only, we're looking at one very small part of the picture … So it's … really … gross over simplification to reduce the whole thing to the costs of labour."
He is right. That is the view of UNICE, just as it is the view of the European TUC.
If the Conservative party is so right on this subject, why is it that the only political party in the rest of the Community that supports it is Mr. Le Pen's National Front? [Interruption.] Why is it that even right-wing Governments do not perceive the menaces and the threats which the Prime Minister and his colleagues see on all sides? Can it really be true—
Mr. David Hunt: The right hon. and learned Gentleman —[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. It is about time that hon. Members settled down —[Interruption.]—in all parts of the House. [Interruption.]Order. If hon. Members do not want to hear what is being said, I do.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I correct in believing that when a Member seeks to address the Chamber for a second time during a sitting, he or she is able to do so only with the permission of the House?
Madam Speaker: That is not the case.
Mr. Hunt: Opposition Members are not going to stop us putting the record straight. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that I quote from the opening statement of Mr. Carlos Ferrer, speaking on behalf of UNICE—
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State for Employment is misleading the House. He has—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little calmness. No one is misleading the House. If, however, the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I shall be pleased to hear it.
Mr. Grocott: The point of order is this: as we try to listen to the debate, the intervention by the Secretary of State for Employment is not an intervention by him but the result of information acquired from civil servants sitting in the Box—from panic-stricken people, who are running up and down. Why do not Ministers come to the House with their own arguments?
Madam Speaker: As far as I am concerned, there is a Minister at the Dispatch Box who is speaking on behalf of the Government and responding to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Hunt: The Leader of the Opposition purported to voice the views of UNICE. I quote from the opening statement of Mr. Carlos Ferrer, at an informal meeting of employment and social affairs Ministers, speaking on behalf of UNICE. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this:
"I want to finish my statement with an urgent call for negative action. This is an appeal from the heart on behalf of the millions of companies which UNICE represents. Governments and the Community expect those companies to produce wealth to invest and to create jobs."
He concluded with these words —[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. If the House will come to order, it will hear what is being said—[Interruption.]— and what is said will be over with quickly.
Mr. Hunt: I am quoting from a statement made on behalf of UNICE. I finish with the general secretary's words—
Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since you have been in the Chair, I have often heard you rightly tell us that interventions should be interventions, not speeches. This is almost a wind-up speech by the Secretary of State for Employment. I hope that you will correct him, just as you have corrected many Back Benchers.
Madam Speaker: It is true that interventions should be short and to the point. [Interruption.] Order. When the House has settled down, I shall speak again. The point that I made earlier was that if hon. Members did not shout so much, whoever was intervening would be able to make his point quickly.
Mr. Hunt: I do not know why Opposition Members are trying to destroy the Leader of the Opposition's speech. I shall quote directly from the statement made on behalf of UNICE. The president—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall wait until everyone is finished. This is now becoming very repetitive. We know what is being quoted; may we have a direct quotation now?
Mr. Hunt: The president said to the Council of Ministers:
"Then please stop taking measures"—
[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the House to settle down. We cannot make progress unless the House settles down. I ask the Secretary of State to come to his conclusion.
Mr. Hunt: He said:
"Then please stop taking measures which unnecessarily destroy jobs."
Will the Leader of the Opposition now withdraw his earlier comment?
Mr. Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman, and those making noisy interventions on his behalf, was not seeking to destroy a speech, it is hard to work out what he was trying to do. I quoted exactly and precisely what the general secretary of UNICE said. [Interruption.] He said it in answer to a question on a BBC programme called "Analysis" on 6 June 1993, just a month ago. It was not a good point that hon. Members shouted at me.
I also remind the Secretary of State that UNICE is actively involved not only in the social protocol but in the machinery to implement it. It is in a special arrangement with the trade unions, about which I think the Prime Minister complained, but it can hardly be against the social chapter when it is in the middle of it, helping to operate it and make it work.
The fundamental point is why, if the employers were so compelling in their arguments, they have not been able to persuade Chancellor Kohl, Mr. Balladur and Mr. Lubbers, the right-wing Conservative figures in Europe, to listen to them. It passes belief that these people are involved in a nefarious plot to destroy their own
534
prosperity. Are these right-wing Conservative leaders so muddled and confused that they have become socialists by accident? Do we really believe that, when the Prime Minister goes to meet these colleagues at meetings of the European People's party and other such gatherings, he bangs the table in his commanding style and warns them that they are closet socialists?
Is it not passing strange that 11 Governments of many and different political complexions are all incapable of discerning the weaknesses in the social protocol? Why is it that not one of the four countries seeking entry into the European Community wants to opt out of the social chapter? Fifteen countries in Europe—those in the Community and those wanting to join—are all of one opinion; only one party and one country is on the other side—all out of step except our John. The Prime Minister must believe that they are all deluded.
Surely the truth is that it is the Prime Minister who is deluded about the nature and effect of the social chapter which elsewhere finds such widespread favour. After all—
Mr. Michael Alison rose—
Mr. Smith: I have given way generously. I do not think that the Conservative party deserves very much indulgence from me in terms of giving way, in view of the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Employment.
Mr. Alison rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Smith: After all, it requires quite an acute form of delusion to claim a triumph of negotiating skill in getting one's country isolated and excluded from a decision-making process of great importance to the Community and, inevitably, of importance to this country. What kind of success is it to have engineered a situation in which, when social affairs are on the Community's agenda, British Ministers have to leave the room, bereft—
Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
British Ministers will be bereft of influence over legislation which many believe will come to apply in Britain as a result of decisions by the Court of Justice, whether or not there is an opt-out.
Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
Mr. Smith: I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Only in the Walter Mitty world that the Prime Minister increasingly inhabits could such nonsense be thought to be an achievement. Of course, we know that the Prime Minister wants the country to believe that, whatever the mess at home, he is really an ace negotiator abroad. Like the comic strip hero, Clark Kent, as soon as he leaves our shores behind, the Prime Minister is transformed into a diplomatic megastar. There he is, Britain's diplomatic megastar, his Superman shirt tucked neatly into his underpants; there he is, a very special kind of hero, shaping the very destiny of Europe, clutching his Maastricht optout as his colleagues gently take him to the door marked "Sortie".

535
What the Prime Minister does not understand—[Interruption.] I do not think that the Conservative party will gain very much by making rowdy noises throughout my speech. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order, Mr. Richards.
Mr. Smith: Conservative Members sometimes forget that there is a wider audience for our proceedings than that in the House.
The Prime Minister and the Government do not understand that their opt-out is Britain's lockout—a lockout from decisions. I could not understand how the Prime Minister could argue that we had to be involved in decision making in the Community while also arguing the justification for an opt-out. Once again, decisions will be arrived at and policies forged in Britain's absence.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall what was said in the press when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister returned from his negotiations? In France, it was said:
"Holding his own"—
[Laughter.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was said:
"Holding his own against his eleven partners, the Prime Minister can show that he has fought a tenacious battle and resisted the interference of socialist Brussels technocrats and demonstrated his devotion to economic liberalism."
That was said in Liberation in France.
Mr. Smith: I do not think that I can congratulate the hon. Lady on her delicacy. As for the details of her intervention, I think that it would be wiser if I simply moved on.
In an interesting article in The Times—a few years ago, admittedly—that point was made forcefully. The author wrote:
"We paid a heavy price when others designed the Common Agricultural Policy. It would be unforgivable to repeat the mistake in industrial and financial policies…The same argument applies to the Social Charter. Britain has legislation in virtually all the relevant fields already. The issue is whether new policies come here by the back door following mergers and takeovers and designed by our competitors, or whether the Government battles to get the original proposals brought more into line with British initiatives and practice. I prefer the latter, as it will suit many in Europe as well."
That was the considered opinion of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He is now President of the Board of Trade, but in 1989 he was free to say what he thought. How many Conservative Members are there who, given the freedom to do so, would gladly vote for the social chapter tonight? I am genuinely sorry that the President of the Board of Trade cannot take part in the debate; he is representative of many other Conservative Members who share his point of view.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose—
Mr. Smith: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is one of them, but out of many years of affection for him I shall be happy to give way.
Mr. Dickens: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was talking about the back door. Has he thought how good industrial relations now are in this country, where,
536
instead of confrontation, teamwork between work force and management is working well? Does he not think that the social chapter would undermine the Thatcher years, during which we rolled back the frontiers? Would it not mean that the trade unions would control the nation again?
Mr. Smith: I should be happy to argue with the hon. Gentleman about all those matters, but I must remind him, as I sought to do at the beginning of my speech—other hon. Members, too, might bear the fact in mind—that pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose lock-outs are not included in the social protocol, so they are not relevant to our discussion.
One should not be surprised to hear that the views that I have quoted were expressed by the President of the Board of Trade. One also hears them from Conservative Members of the European Parliament. In a debate in the European Parliament on 27 May this year, Sir Christopher Prout, whom I understand to be the leader of the Conservative MEPs, could not have put matters more plainly. What he said is on the record of the European Parliament:
"The Conservative Party is in favour of the social dimension"—
[Interruption.] I thought that Conservative Members might all agree with that, and I hope that they will also agree with what Sir Christopher said next. He added, for good measure:
"We all hope once Maastricht is ratified that a suitable intergovernmental agreement can be reached on this matter which will include all Member States."
The Conservatives will come back to the subject. I am sure that some hon. Members will have spotted their tactic. I find it fascinating that Sir Christopher Prout seems more determined to opt in than to opt out.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: It may assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman to know that Mr. Bill Newton Dunn is the leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament and that many of us have no problem with the social dimension; it is the details of the protocol that we dislike and wish to vote against.
Mr. Smith: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I wish that she would weigh in the balance the comments that I read in newspapers such as The Sunday Telegraph. Last week that newspaper quoted a Dutch Christian Democrat, Jean Penders, on the attitudes of Tory MEPs.
Mr. Penders said that at first he was doubtful about his new British colleagues in the European People's party, but that now he is full of praise:
"Oh, they all believe in the Social Chapter, all of them."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The Tory MEPs.
The article, by the Brussels correspondent of The Sunday Telegraph, went on to discuss the dilemma over the manifesto being drafted by the European People's party for the European elections next year, in which I believe the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) hopes to stand. Will the British Tories be bound by it? According to the European People's party, the manifesto will be based on its policies and positions and the British Tories will have to defend every word. It seems that quite a lot of talking will have to take place.
The problem for the Tories is that the European People's party has not been reticent about its views on federalism and the social chapter. I shall quote from the Athens declaration of the ninth congress of the European

537
People's party—[Laughter.] Conservative Members should not mock their continental confederates in that way. The declaration, approved in Athens in November last year, comes straight to the point:
"The main political aim of the European People's Party is European unity. The party advocates European unification on the basis of democracy"—
So far, so good. I can see the Tories looking at me. But the declaration adds the words "and federalism." Even worse, federalism is described as "the ideal for Europe."
But it is when dealing with social policies that the European People's party, the Tories' new friend in Europe, really gets motoring. It says:
"the European People's party declares its support for the implementation of the European Social Charter, the introduction of minimum standards for working conditions and social benefits, and workers' participation in decision making and company profits."
Few of us could have put that better than the European People's party did.
Let no one tell me that the EPP is not having a positively beneficial influence on the Conservative party. I know that it has friends and admirers in the highest reaches of that party, because of a speech made earlier this month by the Secretary of State for Employment, in which he declared himself glad to be a Christian Democrat. He said:
"My own background in politics is a very European one, and I have always, willingly, described myself as a Christian Democrat as well as a Conservative … As the Union between the peoples of Europe, inch by questioning inch, grows ever closer, we will need to look for new alliances … I believe that political and ideological alliances between like-minded parties from different countries will soon come to complement—or supplant—old national rivalries and friendships … Our admittance"—
he means the Conservative party's admittance—
"to the European People's Party in the European Parliament puts that scenario into perspective."
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having said so clearly where the Conservatives stand. Revealingly, he also said:
"There is already far more common ground than people imagine".
Hon. Members may wish to ask him more about that when he speaks later and makes his second intervention in the debate.
Lest there be any doubt about the increasing influence of the European People's party on the Conservative party, the Secretary of State for Employment drove his point home by saying:
"There is even now, an EPP office at Smith square."
Gosh. That must be where Conservative Members can get their personal copies of the Athens declaration. But for the convenience of those attending the meeting of the 1922 Committee tonight, I have caused a copy to be placed in the Library. They can pick it up on their way.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am the only one who has a copy.
Mr. Smith: Precisely. It was a document for which wide circulation was not desired. However, it is now in the Library and hon. Members can obtain it. When they read it they will find out how much they have signed up to in Europe. It is a case not so much of socialism by the back door as of federalism by the front door—the front door of Tory central office.
538
At the heart of the debate is a profound difference about the kind of policies that Britain needs if we are to succeed and to hold our own in a competitive world. The Conservative party, as the Prime Minister's speech confirmed, wants to persist with the failed policies of the 1980s, for which the people of Britain are paying such a heavy price today. It wants to persist with those policies despite the accumulating evidence of their failure.
For example, the World Economic Forum recently published its world competitiveness report on the countries of the OECD, which showed that over the past five years the United Kingdom has fallen down the league. That is the sharpest deterioration in competitiveness of any EC country. The truth which must someday dawn on this Government is that their policies simply have not worked. Even the expurgated version of the Government's own Department of Trade and Industry report shows that Britain is still 25 per cent. below France and Germany in terms of productivity.
The evidence shows that the member states which embraced the social chapter when Britain rejected it have more impressive records of competitiveness and productivity. The Conservatives fail to understand that low wages, inadequate skills and persistent under-investment are the real drag anchors on Britain's economic performance. We have no future as the sweatshop of Europe. If we persist in the policies of social devaluation which lie behind the opt-out from the social chapter, I fear that our relative decline will continue. Indeed, it will accelerate.
Warburg's briefing last week on competitiveness among the leading industrial countries stated:
"Despite having the lowest labour costs per working hour, Britain struggles with the highest unit labour costs."
That is proof surely, if it were needed, that having the lowest wages does not, as the opt-out merchants maintain, lead necessarily to competitive advantage. That is the answer to the question that I was asked at the beginning of this debate.
The Warburg study shows—sensible people know this —that improvement in productivity depends critically on capital investment, the pace of innovation and the quality of the labour force. That is the new economic agenda which Britain and Europe must embrace—not the bargain-basement techniques of wage cuts and skills depression. That is how we can best achieve the competitive edge which is vital to our economic success.
There is another view, the view adopted by British Conservatives, that by depressing wages and undermining the conditions of the work force, a relative advantage can be obtained. We have seen a grotesque example of that in the destruction of the wages councils which, for decades, offered protection to the lowest-paid workers in this country—the people at the greatest risk of exploitation.
The wages councils legislation was introduced at the turn of the century by Winston Churchill to protect the low-paid worker and the good employer. It has been swept aside by the mean-minded men and women of this Administration. Winston Churchill put the point forcefully to the House in 1909; feel free to remind the House of his comments, as it has seldom been put better:
"Where you have … no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer … is undercut by the worst … where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress. but a condition of progressive degeneration." —[Official report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]

539
What a contrast that is with today, when a British Government actually place adverts in the German business press advertising Britain as a low-wage economy. Not for our skills, technology or productivity are we to be recommended—we are to be recommended just for our low wages.
There are low wages in a society in which income equality has dramatically widened over 14 Conservative years. Let me just remind the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] He may want to look at my notes and I hope that he will listen carefully to what I am going to say. I want to remind him of the wages that are actually being paid in the Britain of which he is Prime Minister today. A 28-year-old care assistant working in a private nursing home works 60 hours for £1·33 an hour. A coach driver works 60 hours a week for £2·10 an hour. A forecourt attendant in a petrol station works 70 hours a week for £1·40 an hour. That is the philosophy of the Conservative party and that is how it affects real people in the real world.
How many Conservative Ministers would contemplate accepting those rates of pay for themselves or for their families? If it is not acceptable to them, why should it be thought acceptable for anyone else? What makes it even harder to stomach is the constant rise in salaries, pensions and perks for the highest-paid executives at the same time as the exploitation of vulnerable people proceeds and the Government walk away from their responsibilities to those people. It is that weird Tory double standard on incentives: poor people can be motivated only by the thought of even greater poverty, but the rich are to be inspired by the lure of even greater wealth.
The Government's approach to international competition is just as crude. It is to compete against Taiwan on wages rather than against Germany on skills. The Government say that if our competitors pay low wages, we must follow them down. If there is no employment protection in countries against which we compete, such protection apparently cannot be afforded here either.
We in the Labour party believe that that approach is wholly flawed. Not only is it totally unjust to our people, it is not related in any way to the dynamics and realities of today's world economy. Investors at home and abroad today are seeking skills, technology and a highly motivated and self-confident work force. We hear a lot from the Government about inward investment and how that investment would be afraid to come near us if we were to sign up to the social protocol.
How strange that, in a recent study carried out by Arthur Andersen of Japanese inward investment, wages and social costs are not mentioned by Japanese companies as a factor determining decisions to invest in Britain. The problem which is highlighted and described as most important by Japanese enterprise is
"the difficulty in recruiting skilled or qualified employees."
The Nissan director of personnel gave evidence the other day to the Select Committee on Employment. He dismissed the social chapter as a significant factor in respect of inward investment.
It is also highly revealing that many Japanese firms in Britain bring with them much better working practices than are common in British firms and which far exceed anything that would he required by the social chapter. A recent survey—[Interruption.] It would benefit Ministers
540
to listen to some of this evidence instead of, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rudely interrupting from a sedentary position.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I was merely provoked by the logic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position. Having used a 1909 quotation and 1909 sentiments, he went on to describe the attractions to this country now of Japanese investment, to a deregulated economy which is outside the social chapter. He illustrates that the Japanese are not creating a sweatshop economy here. It is a modern, thriving economy, and the Japanese are coming here because we are attractive outside the social chapter.
Mr. Smith: I am surprised at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Surely the point about the 1909 quotation is that it is astonishing that someone in 1909 understood something which members of the Conservative party have not yet realised in the 1990s. Churchill said that when he was a Liberal. Apparently Conservatives only pay attention to what Churchill said when he was a Conservative, such is the narrow and partisan view of history and reality adopted by the Conservative party.
What the Chancellor of the Exchequer should understand—[Interruption.]—I hope that he will listen carefully to this—is that a recent survey of the pay and employment conditions in eight major Japanese-owned companies employing 15,000 people in the United Kingdom found that wages, maternity and paternity leave and fringe benefits in those companies were far more generous than those in Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point?"] I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will finally get the point that companies as progressive as that are not worried about a social chapter because they will easily be able to comply with its provisions.
I hope that some British companies will copy Nissan, which recently agreed two-year pay deal increases with maternity pay of up to 100 per cent. of average earnings for up to a maximum of 18 weeks. Maternity leave has been extended to 40 weeks after birth with existing rights of return to work maintained. Matsushita Electric, Sony and Komatsu have introduced parternity leave for their workers. Although Conservative Members often jeer at that, what in some ways is the most successful economic country in the world is showing us a better way forward in terms of social provision. Far from being put off by the social chapter, the Japanese are ahead of it.
In the real world, the new economic agenda requires a new approach—a positive combination of skills development, decent standards, humane standards, and ever-widening employment opportunities. That must mean giving greater opportunities at work for women on the basis of equal rights and adequate provision for maternity leave and child care—not just because that is their right, but because our economy needs the indispensable contribution that women can make to our future prosperity.
I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer nodding. That is why I find it odd that the Government should object to a social chapter which provides for
"equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work."
In rejecting that provision, what message is the Conservative party giving to the women of this country?

541
That is why the Conservative party is seen as socially the most backward in Europe, even by its own party colleagues.
It is now entirely clear that the whole of this argument about opting out of the social dimension of the treaty is not about Britain's national interest or our future prosperity. It is much more about the internal politics of the Conservative party and increasingly about the tattered reputation of a discredited Prime Minister. One day he tells us that Britain must be at the heart of Europe—that is to keep his Chancellor and his Employment Secretary on board. On another day he warns of the insidious socialist threats inherent in the European scheme—words to please his Home Secretary and his Secretary of State for Social Security. One thing to the 1922 Committee; no doubt something else to the European People's party.
We are, of course, accustomed to and indeed sometimes entertained by the right hon. Gentleman's increasingly desperate games with his own party, but, at the end of the day, that must be a matter for them. What is an entirely different matter is the Prime Minister's attitude to Parliament. It must be a matter of astonishment that he has not readily accepted that the decision on the social chapter is for this House to take. Throughout our deliberations on the European Communities (Amendment) Act, the Government sought to avoid the House coming to a decision and agreed to section 7 of the Act, under which this resolution is debated, only when they faced the prospect of inevitable defeat if they did otherwise.
Over the Conservative years we have seen the checks and balances of our system of government being persistently undermined in favour of the power of the central state. We see that, for example, in the deliberate diminishment of local government and in the creation of ministerially dominated quangos on an unprecedented scale. But I warn the Prime Minister that, if he seeks to take it even further and seeks to defy the will of the House, he will have exceeded the power of his office.
I urge the House to vote for the social chapter. It is our responsibility in this House to make the decision and, when we have made the decision, it is the unavoidable responsibility of the Government to accept and to implement what the House has decided.
5.42 pm
Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) shows astonishing naivety or forgetfulness if he thinks that there is a natural majority in the House in favour of the social chapter. Has the right hon. and learned Member forgotten that a reasoned amendment was debated on Second Reading, on 25 May 1992, declining to give a Second Reading to the Maastricht Bill because it did not accord with the social protocol? The motion was defeated by 360 to 261 votes—a natural majority of 99 against the social chapter. That situation has not changed.
Today, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are again debating the social chapter not because, in any sense, there is a majority in favour of it, but for two contradictory reasons. The first is that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats still believe, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown, that we should sign up
542
to the social chapter, despite all commentators being against it. Evidently, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East does not read the Financial Times. He does not read The Times. He does not read the paper published today by the Confederation of British Industry on behalf of all businesses, large and small, in which its members argue very strongly against our acceptance of the social chapter.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman got into the business of quoting European leaders against my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I remind him of what the German Economics Minister, Gunther Rexrodt, said in Brussels on 29 June after presenting a 10-point plan designed to put Germany back on its feet. He is reported as commenting:
"The plan is likely to undermine EC 'solidarity' in economic growth and related social policy matters."
When it was suggested to one of Mr. Rexrodt's aides that he appeared to be opting for the United Kingdom's approach to these issues, he commented, "What's wrong with that?"
The mood in the Community over the past 12 months has clearly been towards increasing concern about the social chapter, simply because it is now seen that, on average, wage costs in western Europe are 20 per cent. higher than those in the Pacific rim countries, and unemployment in western Europe remains constantly higher than in the United States, where the social costs of employing labour are much lower.
If we continued in that direction—the social chapter would emphasise it—jobs would continue to haemorrhage away from all western European countries towards south-east Asia, the Pacific rim and eastern European countries which are now newly competitive and, of course, interested in joining the Common Market, with lower labour costs.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Renton: If my hon. Friend will be brief, yes.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall be very brief. As there has been much talk about the importance of the social chapter and as my right hon. Friend has talked about the loss of jobs, will he give us an indication of what kind of directives could be made under the social chapter which cannot already be made under the Single European Act and article 101 of the treaty of Rome? I have asked that question six times during our long debates, and I am afraid that I have not had an answer.
Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend will know very well that to implement many of the suggestions in the social chapter would need directives which could come forward to this House for approval. But such directives, if they did not require a statutory instrument here, could go through in Brussels on qualified majority voting alone. That is where our problem arises. That deals with my hon. Friend's point. Although the social chapter is a relatively vague declaration—I agree with my hon. Friend, if that is what he is saying—it could be followed by specific measures which could slip through on qualified majority voting. That would be against the employment interests not only of this country but of other western European countries as well.
I wish to revert to the point that I was making to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. This

543
debate is happening not because it is in the natural course of events that we should have another debate on the social chapter—that suggestion was defeated in May last year by 99 votes—but, as I have said, for two very contradictory reasons. One is the continuing blind attachment of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to the measure, which can only lead to higher unemployment for western Europe if it is adopted and implemented by directives. The other reason is that a handful of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who do not believe in the social chapter for one second, nevertheless believe, as they might believe that the earth is flat, that by voting for the social chapter tonight they may somehow be able to scupper the Maastricht treaty. There is no possibility of that.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Renton: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will make his own speech in his own good time. I suspect that if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will make it very soon.
Mr. Ashdown: On this particular point?
Mr. Renton: No. I wish to make progress. I do not want to delay the House.
It was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his opening remarks that, whatever happened about the social chapter, we would certainly go forward and ratify the Maastricht treaty. Whether that is before or after Lord Rees-Mogg's action will doubtless depend to some extent on the way in which the judges carefully consider Madam Speaker's important ruling in the House yesterday.
I believe that I carry the right hon. Member for Yeovil with me when I say that we must ratify the Maastricht treaty. It cannot be right for this country to go on putting brakes on the development of the European Community. As an extremely powerful trading bloc, it is now far and away our most important partner in the trade which forms such a large part of our livelihood in this country.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has constantly said, we wish to be in the forefront of the discussions which lie immediately ahead on the widening of the European Community—on the joining of the four, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria, all of whom should join quite quickly in the months ahead. We also need to be party to the discussions within the Community about the attitude of the EC to the still unfinished GATT round.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House should remember that the next governmental conference is only three years away. There is a great deal of preparatory work to be done for that conference to continue the task of widening the Community. If we do not ratify the treaty, how can we be at the forefront in those important negotiations?
I hope that this will be the last time the House indulges in antics of the sort that we have seen in recent months while discussing this European treaty. I use the word, "antics" advisedly, and I suggest that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East should listen for a moment, because perhaps he will agree with me. I shall not mince my words. I regard the unattractive alliance between Labour and Liberal and a handful of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches to force through a commitment to the social chapter as parliamentary horseplay.
544
I listened to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), and I am sorry that he is no longer present. He and I were in a short television debate this morning. He used high-minded language about the sanctity of Parliament and the huge constitutional issues involved in this debate today—talk that was echoed by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East in his closing remarks. I do not think that the unsavoury alliance that I have described does any credit to the mother of Parliaments—to me, it is much more reminiscent of a Whitehall farce in which Brian Rix might play a part.
Yesterday Madam Speaker gave a ruling of very great importance, which was basically a warning to the courts not to interfere in the legislative process of the House of Commons. The ruling emphasised again the supreme position in law-making of this House. I find it very hard to understand how that ruling is compatible in moral terms with the short-sighted politicking that we are seeing in connection with the social chapter.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said during Business questions today that the Government should concentrate on providing jobs. I could not agree with him more, but at the heart of my argument is my belief that if the majority of the House is against the social chapter it is simply because it is an engine of unemployment. The hon. Member for Bolsover may be a surprising ally, but I hope that on that basis he will join me in the Lobby tonight in voting against the social chapter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The reason why I talk about jobs is that, in the period the Government have been in office, about 3 million people have been thrown out of work, social chapter or no social chapter. Every pit in my constituency has been closed. The shipyards have been closed. The fishing fleets have been almost destroyed. The industrial base has been decimated. That is why I talk about jobs. The Tory Government are responsible.
Mr. Renton: It is a great pity that I gave way to the hon. Member for Bolsover, because he has not said anything to do with the social chapter or with the European Community.
My last point is a somewhat personal postscript. In recent days and weeks, as someone who was Chief Whip during Lady Thatcher's last year of government, I have often been asked for my comments on the whipping of Members in relation to this Act, as it now is, on the Maastricht treaty. I know that the job of Chief Whip is a lonely one, and I have very great sympathy with my right hon. Friend the present Patronage Secretary. As I have said in answer to those questions, however, the problem facing the Chief Whip and the Government Whips Office in the past few weeks is unique in my experience of nearly 20 years in the House.
Not long ago, Lord Pym—our Chief Whip during the passage of the European Communities Act 1972—told me how, during the passage of that Act, he and Neil Marten, who led the dissidents on the Tory side, met regularly to talk about tactics and how to handle the business. There was never any question of the dissidents, for example, voting against Government motions on time, or voting for business to go on after 10 o'clock. There was certainly never any question of the dissidents voting for additions to the European Communities Bill in which they did not believe, and which they would not have been honest in supporting, simply in order to embarrass the Government.

545
It is impossible for me to find an exact analogy, therefore, to the problems that we have seen in the last few weeks. I can only think, with a good deal of sorrow, of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1940, when those who were against communism joined those who were for communism in a very dishonourable alliance. That pact proved disastrous. The implacable enemies became partners. It was a pact based on wholly dishonest considerations.
Any pact forged today which resulted in the House, against its better judgment and against its natural majority, voting for the social chapter would similarly lead to disaster—disaster, above all, for this country, because it would lead not to more jobs on low wages but to higher unemployment on no wage and total dependence on social security benefits.
5.56 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) did not give way, because he gave the lie to, and showed the fraudulent nature of, the argument that lay at the heart of the Prime Minister's speech. It is the Prime Minister's weakness in this matter that has led him to the position that he is now in. He has never, throughout the passage of the Act, been prepared to articulate a single message. He has always played the part of the Whip, not the Prime Minister. That is exactly what he is doing in this debate, and, having spent so much time in his speech attacking me, he could at least, I believe, have been here now to listen to what I have to say.
As usual, our Prime Minister, who ought to be giving a lead to the nation, is telling two different parts of the House two different things. To his hon. Friends he says that this is a debate about the social chapter; but to us on this side of the House he says that this is a debate about ratification. Nothing could have made it more clear.
Since the Prime Minister is not in his seat now, perhaps the Minister would like to tell us what we will be voting on tonight. His hon. Friends would like to know. The Prime Minister has told them that we are voting tonight for the social chapter, but he told me that we would be voting for ratification. The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex made it quite clear what he thought: he thought that we would be voting for the social chapter.
I will happily give way to the Minister, who represents the Prime Minister. Will he tell us, when we vote tonight, shall we be voting for the social chapter or for ratification?
Mr. David Hunt: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there will be two votes at the conclusion of this debate. The first vote will be on an amendment, which I understand he supports, that would impose the social protocol, which he has criticised on so many occasions. The second vote will then be in accordance with the motion on the Order Paper. As I understand it, there is a motion on the Order Paper provided the amendment is defeated.
The question which the Prime Minister put to the right hon. Gentleman, and which he had not yet answered—[Interruption.] No. I am just putting the point to the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order, Interventions should be exceedingly short.
Mr. Ashdown: The House and the nation will have noticed, of course, that the Minister has not answered the question. We know perfectly well that both the motion and the amendment tonight are about the social chapter. We know beyond peradventure that the debate is not about ratification because Ministers—from the Foreign Secretary to the Prime Minister—have told us that. They have told us bluntly that, whatever the House does, they will go ahead and ratify anyway, so this is about the social chapter. That is why it is consistent to vote in the second Division in the same way as we vote in the first one, and so we shall do. We will vote on every occasion that we get—
Mr. Peter Shore rose—
Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I am in the 10-minute Bill, so I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Mr. Terry Lewis: The 10-minute Bill?
Mr. Ashdown: The 10-minute rule.
We will vote tonight, and on every subsequent occasion, to give Britain the best opportunity to have the benefits of the social chapter for our economy and our work force. That is what we will do tonight.
It should come as no surprise to the Government that we will do that. We made a manifesto commitment, which has been repeated in speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Ministers in private that that is our position.
The Prime Minister has no right to say—as he said recently—that he is bewildered about our position. That is a misrepresentation and he knows it. There are all sorts of reasons why our Prime Minister might be bewildered, but he cannot be bewildered about our position, and we will vote tonight consistent with that.
Mr. David Howell rose—
Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman will speak in a moment. I have only 10 minutes, so I hope that he will forgive me.
I would prefer to vote for our amendment. Voting for the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is our only way of expressing our commitment to the social chapter and reincorporation.
That does not mean that we do not have some reservations about the social chapter. I do not resile from a single word that I have said. We have reservations about articles 4 and 2·4, which seem to provide a mechanism to bypass democratic institutions of the European Community. We have reservations about all sorts of European legislation. We have reservations about Maastricht, just as the Prime Minister has.
But the whole point—as the Prime Minister clearly said with as much passion as he was able to summon—is that it is important that we are in the social institutions and shaping them, not outside. His speech made a wonderful statement about how it is important to be in Europe. It did not seem to be a speech that much supported the idea of opt-outs from Europe.
As a result of the way in which this matter has been portrayed by both the Government and the Labour party, we have made the social chapter into something that,

547
frankly, it is not. It is not the great new monster of socialism stalking across Europe which the Government try to persuade us to believe it is. Nor is it the archangel of socialism about to return us to the 1970s, as the Labour party would have us believe. It is an anodyne statement of broad intent. Those who examine the social chapter in the treaty of Rome, to which we subscribe, aided and strengthened by Baroness Thatcher with the Single European Act, will see that there is remarkably little difference between the two.
The social chapter simply codifies the established best practices of most modern British firms and almost all successful ones. Therefore, we take the view that on balance it is good for the country and our work force. If there is a move to a better understanding of the dangers of corporatism in Europe among the Germans—as there is —the French and the Portuguese, that is no reason to be outside it, as the Prime Minister argued. It is a reason to be inside it, helping to mobilise that movement and reshape the social chapter.
The Government have two reasons why they should not be in the social chapter. The first reason—the Prime Minister laboured this point—is that it would make Britain uncompetitive. However, most of our firms, certainly all the successful ones, already exceed the terms of the social chapter. They already go further than the social chapter in the way in which they treat their work force.
The Prime Minister invited us to talk to business. I did. Three weeks ago, I went to Toyota, which has made a massive investment near Derby. I asked about the secret of its success. Toyota is the most successful car manufacturer in the world. I asked the managing director, who took me round, "What is the secret of your success?" He said, "The secret of our success is that we value our work force. We recognise that our work force are our most important asset. We invest in our work force. We provide them with terms and conditions that will keep them. Those terms and conditions far exceed the terms of the social chapter." I asked, "Why do you succeed in the market place?" He said, "Because we provide quality goods. It is quality that wins in the market place. You cannot produce quality goods unless you have a quality work force." That is what the social chapter is all about. This is not inimical to success; it is the secret of success.
There are only two ways for this country to go. We may choose to become a low wage, low investment, low skill and low technology industry. That is what we may choose as our industrial base. I warn the Prime Minister that, if that is what he wants our country to be, we will have miserable years ahead. If we go in that direction, many emerging countries in eastern Europe and elsewhere will do it better and cheaper than us. That is the way to poverty in this nation.
Alternatively, we may choose to go down the other route. We may choose to be a high value-added, high skill, high investment and high wage economy. There is no way that the country will assure its future prosperity other than by taking that route. That is what the social chapter is about.
The second part of the Government's case is that we cannot afford to give our workers decent standards. The Government could not have revealed the poverty of their aspirations more powerfully than by telling British workers that they cannot afford to provide the terms and conditions that will be enjoyed by workers in Greece and
548
Portugal. Is that what we are saying to the people of our country? is that what we are saying the Government will create? They will create an economy in which our workers will not even have the rights of workers in Greece and Portugal. God forbid if that is where we are going.
The reality of this is clear. It has nothing to do with the good of British industry and British jobs; it has everything to do with the divisions in the Conservative party. The Prime Minister had to return from Europe with a piece of paper in his hand that he could wave at Conservative Back Benchers. This is what it was all about: game, set and match in an attempt to unite the Conservative party, but lose, lose and lose for the country. The Prime Minister is more a Whip than a leader. He is more concerned about uniting his divided party than in providing the country with a stable basis for future prosperity.
Workers who have lost their jobs, their businesses and their homes as a result of the Government's recession must now lose their rights because of the divisions in the Conservative party. That is what it boils down to in the end. We will vote for the social chapter as the best way of ensuring that Britain and British workers have the rights, the abilities and the advantages of it.
There is a majority in the House for the Maastricht treaty, and there is a majority in the House for the social chapter. It takes a Government of this bungling ineptitude never to be able to mobilise the treaty or the social chapter. That is the reason why the Prime Minister and the Government are in the mess that they are in tonight. I hope that the vote is carried. If it is carried, we expect the Prime Minister to obey it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker has ruled that speeches from now until 8 pm shall last for 10 minutes only.
6.8 pm
Sir Cranley Onslow: I shall not follow the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in his by-electioneering speech. because there is not enough time to go into it.
I am convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's reliance on Toyota as a typical example of the problems now faced by British industrialists. To pick out an international company, which was established here on a green-field site and which negotiates successful deals with its work force, and claim that its position is similar to that of Rolls-Royce, GKN or any other major British company competing in the world market, distorts the truth. The Leader of the Opposition also distorted the truth with his reliance on the example of Nissan.
If what the right hon. Member for Yeovil and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) say is true, how do they account for the fact that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and all employers who have appeared before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry have been unanimous in their belief that the costs that the social chapter would impose upon their businesses would be ruinous to our search for competitiveness in Europe or elsewhere?
We must judge British industry on the basis of international competition. We must recognise that we face the fiercest competition that we have yet to encounter from

549
the far east and the Pacific rim. The trend in Europe is to make European industry less competitive. I believe that that experience will show the the Europeans, through their enforcement of the social chapter, are in grave danger of saddling themselves with costs that will make them progressively less and less competitive.
What also impressed me in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was his apparent belief that the social chapter would be good for employment prospects. I do not know what particular section of industry or work force are likely to benefit if we do as the Opposition amendment obliges us to do.
I appreciate that the enforcement of the social chapter may lead to more employment for bureaucrats and trade union negotiators. It might also give a lot more employment to lawyers, and I can see that that must be dear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's heart. However, I cannot see any way in which the social chapter will increase productive employment. We do not need to give it such a boost, given the improvements to working practice that are constantly being achieved in our efficient industries.
I do not find either of the cases deployed by the Opposition parties particularly convincing. I do not see how the amendment, were it to be carried tonight, could have the effect that it claims. There is certainly a majority in this House and in the other place in favour of the Maastricht treaty. We have the figures to prove that, and they have been quoted more than once.
The House has only given my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the power to ratify the treaty that he signed. If he were required by the House to seek to amend it, he would be unable to do so. A new treaty would have to be negotiated, and the House of Commons would have to give my right hon. Friend new powers.
What makes today's debate such a curiosity is that, in practical terms, it does nothing. It does not empower the Prime Minister to import the social chapter into our law. The House of Commons alone can do that. I am fairly sure —I believe that all my colleagues on the Conservative Benches would probably agree with me—that, if a Bill were brought before the House to impose a new social chapter treaty, it would be defeated on its Second Reading.
The debate is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The only possible explanation of the position in which we find ourselves today is that an unholy alliance, on the part of some of my hon. Friends, is seeking to wreck the Maastricht treaty and prevent its ratification. I regret that. If they said that that was not part of their intention, their words would be believed. Should they join the Opposition in the Lobby tonight, however, I doubt that they could possibly say that there is no intention to wreck the Maastricht treaty. I see no sign of dissent from my view.
Mr. William Cash: I am only too delighted to intervene on my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Labour amendment does not in any way impose the social chapter upon the United Kingdom? Furthermore, under the wording of that amendment, it is merely a question of whether the Government were to notify their intention, which they clearly would not do.
Sir Cranley Onslow: I am sorry that I gave way, because I knew that my hon. Friend would be long-winded.
550
[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend reads the amendment, he will see that it states that the Government should not ratify the treaty unless and until they have done what is stipulated under the amendment. If the Opposition amendment is not a wrecking one, I do not know a wrecking amendment when I see one. The objectives that my hon. Friends seek to achieve are, similarly, wrecking objectives. I believe that they intend to leave the House without a resolution tonight, which would be thoroughly—
Sir Teddy Taylor: Hear, hear.
Sir Cranley Onslow: That would be cynical and unscrupulous. It is clear from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that that is their intention.
That takes me back to the real point at issue. There is a majority in the House in favour of the treaty. If the majority in the House goes against the Government, the stipulation in the treaty will make it impossible—
Mr. Cash: It is stipulated in an Act of Parliament.
Sir Cranley Onslow: That Act of Parliament makes it impossible for the Government to seek to ratify the treaty, because no resolution has been reached.
The whole purpose of the unholy alliance into which my hon. Friends have entered is simply to wreck the ratification of the treaty.
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Cranley Onslow: No, I am bound by the time constraint.
I do not believe that Parliament should allow itself to be abused and twisted in this way. The simple facts are straight. There is a majority in the House in favour of the treaty—
Sir Teddy Taylor: But not in the country.
Sir Cranley Onslow: The power to ratify that treaty has been given to the Government by the House. That is what we need and that is what we should do. There should be no further messing about.
6.15 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: Two issues will be decided tonight: a minor one and a major one.
The minor issue is the social chapter, and the major one is the entire Maastricht treaty. More precisely, the minor issue is whether the agreement attached to the protocol on social policy should be adopted or rejected. The major issue is whether the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which enacts most of the Maastricht treaty—the treaty of union—should come into force.
The social chapter is the minor issue, for a number of reasons. I fully understand why, however, those on both sides of the House who have spoken have tended to exaggerate its effects. The Prime Minister made it very clear that it would ruin British industry and destroy jobs. I am afraid that some in the Labour party would have people believe that vast benefits will be bestowed upon working people in Britain as a result of the social chapter. Not so. It will do neither.

551
The social chapter will have a barely discernible effect, for three reasons. First, let us consider the most direct item of cost—wages and salaries. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, wages, salaries and benefits are explicitly excluded from the social chapter. They will not be affected one iota by it.
There will be no effect on the right of association, the right to strike, and the right to impose lock-outs—all of which could significantly affect collective bargaining and therefore pay, wages and salaries. Those issues will not be affected by the social chapter, because they are excluded from it.
Secondly, one may ask about non-wage cash benefits. Social security payments, national insurance contributions, social protection of workers generally, redundancy pay and compensation for the termination of contracts need not cause any worries. Any change to any of them would require unanimity of voting and that is subject to the veto.
Thirdly, what about indirect costs? Those costs include control over working hours, night-time working, paid holidays, leave and pay for pregnant women, and the employment of children and young workers under the age of 18. They are important matters, but the social chapter does not deal with them. They are neither included nor excluded, because they are already enacted under article 118A of the European Communities Act 1972, as amended by the Single European Act. They are already imposed in full or in part on the United Kingdom by qualified majority voting.
The costs and benefits proposed in the social chapter are minimal.
The other non-work force factors that influence productivity and unit costs that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned—Management efficiency, innovation, the quality of products and capacity utilisation—are so small that what can be done under the social chapter defies measurement.
There was once a fairly plausible case against the social chapter: that any increase in costs might affect a country whose productivity was very low. However, that possible effect was under a fixed exchange rate system. Since 14 September 1992, when the pound floated free, there has been no problem whatever of competitiveness arising out of the social chapter.
The argument on the grounds that it would impose crippling costs on British industry is entirely bogus. Equally bogus is the argument that it would provide measurable benefits for people at work in Britain. It is what The Guardian in its leader column yesterday called "a waffling irrelevance", which applies to both sides of the argument.
We all know why the Government, and to some extent my right hon. Friends, have attached so much importance to the social chapter. We well know that the Government have not had an easy time with the Maastricht treaty. There are many things in the treaty that Conservative Members find it difficult to swallow. Therefore, the social chapter was brought back as a great prize, not only because we opted out, but, I regret to say, to appeal to the more primitive instincts of the Conservative party. It was waved about as a banner.
The Maastricht treaty is not very popular with Labour Members and among those who have read it and understood it. Labour party members and our supporters have not yet understood that what is proposed, which the
552
Front-Bench spokesmen of my party have accepted, is that it entails the handover of the powers of economic decision-making to unelected bodies in Europe. They have not yet understood that it will allow those bodies to decide the Chancellor's Budget and his borrowing requirement, it will abolish the Bank of England as a nationalised industry and hand it over to a totally independent European central bank that will decide the interest rates and exchange rates of our country.
The Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen and our shadow Chancellor need to offer something in return to the British people. That is why they too have given such exaggerated importance to the social chapter; a little something, a little bit of sugar to cover the bitter pill of the surrender of serious economic powers.
So much for the minor issue, now for the major one: the treaty itself. I read Madam Speaker's splendid ruling yesterday when she dealt with the possible challenge by the courts to the supremacy of Parliament. She quoted the words of the Bill of Rights.:
"freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."
I agree with every word. I repeat the words:
"proceedings … ought not to be impeached or questioned … in any court or place out of Parliament."
The British courts or Whitehall is not the primary threat to Parliament. That threat is massively present in the treaties of the European Community that proclaim the supremacy of Community law over British law, and in its courts of justice that can and do strike down and render nugatory any Act of this Parliament that conflicts with European law. Through the Maastricht treaty, it will massively extend its powers to large new areas of policies, including the ultimate power of imposing fines on this country if its rulers dared to pursue policies contrary to those imposed by the European Community.
All this and more is at the heart of the Maastricht treaty. That is the major matter, and to resist that further encroachment of powers should be the aim of all hon. Members who cast their votes tonight.
6.24 pm
Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made many excellent points in his powerful opening speech, but he never spoke a truer word than when he said that, since the time of the signing of the Maastricht treaty, the argument has changed throughout Europe. He is completely right to say that many of the issues considered at the time of the signing of the treaty as British eccentricities and doubts have how become universally agreed and actively supported by the policy makers of Europe as they face totally new conditions.
In many ways, the doubters of Maastricht—heaven knows, that included the British Government throughout the 1980s and even at the signing and the negotiating of the treaty—have won the argument. We have listened over long nights and weeks to my hon. Friends the so-called "Tory rebels". They have shown courage, and they have fought the good fight in their corner, and I respect that.
In a way they have won the argument, not to their desired extent of stopping the ratification of the treaty, but in having validly and accurately pointed out the absurdities of the high, complete Maastricht doctrine and

553
its dangers. Yesterday's editorial of the Wall Street Journal said that the old taboos of European union—the gobbledegook and the Euro-speak—have been smashed.
It is curious, although my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister cannot say it himself, that he has been one of the most effective Euro-rebels. His vision and that of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, proposed against a storm of sneers and opposition from the party opposite and many others in Europe at the time of the Maastricht treaty, has gained ground.
Now every banker says that monetary union will not come about and that it is an absurd idea, but they did not say it then. Now every commentator says that the Maastricht treaty has many over-centralising elements and that we must decentralise. The great idea of subsidiarity was dragged up somehow to counteract the trends of Maastricht, but the over-centralising elements were not noted at the time, either. Further summits were needed to establish a completely new mood.
It would be comical if it were not tragic to see the great British Labour party once again climbing too late on the bandwagon of yesterday's causes. It brought the whole Maastricht package, and that is now out of date. Europe is facing completely different problems.
We all know perfectly well—this is the main reason why I want to see the treaty ratified and to get on with things —that, as soon as the treaty is ratified, we shall move on to new ground. We shall not merely seek amendments to the Maastricht treaty, or merely wait until 1996—that is much too long—but we shall look for amendments to the Single European Act, as the Maastricht treaty itself does, and for amendments to the treaty of Rome.
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howell: I do not have time, although I respect my hon. Friend's view.
Many of the issues that have recently been debated will form the basis for a new agenda and new treaties that will begin to head Europe in the right direction. That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw months and years ago. He has led the way, and that has been the growing theme throughout the rest of Europe.
We know that the vision of Europe resting on the nation states, with a huge return of powers from the Community machinery and institutions to the nation states, with far tighter controls on the central machinery, such as the Council of Ministers and the Commission, and with the entrenchment of the rights of nation states with carefully circumscribed power only to the central authorities needed to run the common, free and open market, are now the common aspirations and the mood of more and more Europeans. We know that, in the larger Europe that is coming, more Europeans will welcome the great European confederation of nation states which replaces the old-fashioned centralised ideas which were too prevalent at Maastricht.
I should like to see the Government not sitting around and saying that they have reached a point where it is all too difficult, and that we must wait until 1996. I should like to see all hon. Members, and certainly my right hon. Friends, visit present and future members of the enlarged Community and bring home to them the new agenda for
554
which we intend to push and gain agreement right through Europe, with more decentralisation—a confederal commonwealth of Europe based on the nation state.
Although my hon. Friends, the famous rebels, fight on, theirs is in a sense yesterday's battle. They would be ill advised to ignore the advice of many wise people outside this House; they should not listen only to other Members of Parliament. They should see where they should now stand and how they should consolidate what they have gained. They should help to build the better Europe that we all want to see, instead of the old, centralised Europe.
There is some glorious confusion about social policy, which was shown especially in the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). He does not understand that social policy at European level is based on two legislative origins. It is based on the social chapter, which is the social provisions in the treaty of Rome, which have been largely accepted. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has signed up to them.
Britain is the leading country in implementing those provisions. From the list supplied by the European Commission, it can be seen that we are the only country that has applied all the EC social directives since we joined the European Community. Every other country, including Belgium, which is always lecturing us on these matters, and Germany, which tells us that we are dumbheads and do not understand the social dimension, has noncompliance written against its name. Britain is the only country of the 12 that has complied in all circumstances, except in two in which the appropriateness of compliance is being questioned. Every other country is a non-complier.
We have accepted the social chapter; that is not an argument. The social chapter covers a range of important issues concerned with health and safety at work, the equal treatment of men and women, rights at work, the free movement of workers and a variety of important social issues. We accept all that, although it is absurd that it should be done from so remote and central a place as Brussels.
What we question is something quite different, which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East did not seem to understand. We question the social charter, which was put together in December 1989 and which formed the basis of the protocol which is now in the Maastricht treaty. More and more people in Europe are realising that that great move on from the normal social provisions in the Rome treaty and in the Single European Act is largely unnecessary, and increasingly out of date.
My right hon. and hon. Friends need no lectures from anybody about the implementation of either European social policy or of national social policy. We are entitled to lecture in return that the case for social policy being dictated centrally and uniformly is absurdly out of date. The whole mood now is for more flexibility, and for more differentiation and variety between the nation states.
The real problem of Europe which the policy makers now face is not the social protocol, which is an out-of-date and unnecessary concept. The real problem is competitiveness, which is draining away throughout Europe, to the point where we are finding it difficult to sustain our living standards, let alone improve them. The real problem is the 19 million unemployed throughout Europe, half of whom have been unemployed for more than a year.
The social protocol thinking and the detail of it are not wrong because they do not sound good. Of course the

555
social protocol sounds good, and it appeals to Opposition Members. It is wrong not because low wages are good and because we want to make this a low-wage economy. It is wrong because lower overheads are essential throughout Europe if we are to begin to compete and to enable our present social standards to be maintained.
I read a document produced by the Labour-supported Commission for Social Justice, which began with a call for Britain to wake up in social matters. Opposition Members should listen to that message. This nation should wake up if we are to maintain, let alone to advance, our capacity to provide social provision and a high-wage economy.
High wages must be earned by much harder work, by a much tighter control of social overheads, and by moving away from the placid idea that the whole of Europe can have long weekends while Asia does not have weekends at all. We have to have far tougher schooling, we have to work longer hours and we must now move in the 1990s into a far more dedicated and hard-working environment if we are to maintain our existing social entitlements, let alone have all the fat, generous layer of entitlements which are promised but cannot be delivered by the social protocol.
Japanese children are told in school, right from the beginning, when they are three or four years old, that no one owes them a living. They are told that they must save, encourage investment and work extremely hard because no one in the world owes them a living. They are told that they must compete.
That is the social and compassionate message that should come from those concerned with jobs, with employment and with the prosperity of the people of Europe, especially the people of this island. That is the message that we should hear instead of the out-of-date absurdity of a social protocol that belongs to yesterday.
6.34 pm
Mr. Stuart Randall: The major aspect of the social dimension is the scale of unemployment that we are experiencing in Europe. It is a major problem, and action is needed if we are not to impair our competitiveness as we move into the 21st century, with the burden of 16 million or 17 million unemployed people, and if we are not to damage the fabric of our society.
The challenge is to be able to maintain a balance between improving our society through our social policy and social fabric, and retaining the competitiveness of our industries. The social chapter provides a framework for creating social policies. There are no rules that one cannot sack people or change wages under the social policy as it is written. The social chapter also extends majority voting.
To arrive at new policies that will determine what costs there will he on industry and the sort of social fabric we have involves a long consultative process. However, the decisions will be made by the Council of Ministers. There is nothing in Maastricht that will increase the overhead costs of business, as some hon. Members have claimed. They will be determined later through the Council of Ministers.
I have a little confidence in the Council of Ministers. I believe that it will take into account the changes that have emanated throughout Europe since the treaty was written. We have had the recession. Unemployment has gone up since the treaty was written. The target dates for economic
556
and monetary union must have changed. There is now a Conservative Government in France and a right-wing Government in Italy.
We also have the Commission's document, "Community-Wide Framework for Employment" which was sent by the Commission to the Social Affairs Committee. That document drew unfavourable comparisons between EC growth and employment and growth and employment in the United States and in Japan. The latest statement from the European Convention in Copenhagen made some comments on that. All hon. Members must take that into account if we are being realistic. All the changes are creating an atmosphere among member states. They realise that they have to be a bit more wary, and that they must not be wild about social policy or wild in other ways, because of the costs involved.
Mr. Iain Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Randall: I will not give way, because I do not have time.
The key to our competitiveness is to reduce the burden of unemployment and to create jobs in high-tech areas. I welcome the Commission's proposals to do that, whereas I find the Government's approach of just reducing labour costs rather pathetic. The Commission's proposals for reducing unemployment are comprehensive and very good. They contrast markedly with the way in which the Government are going about the matter.
What are the implications of signing the social chapter? Signing does not in itself commit us to any change in our employment legislation or to any measures that could, even theoretically, reduce our competitiveness. That contrasts strongly with the line put by the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) who gave no specific example of how costs would be raised.
All that would do is extend areas of the EC labour laws where the EC already has competence, and extend areas that can be decided by majority vote. The new powers will depend ultimately on the Council of Ministers and the direction that member states collectively decide they should follow in the future. I have sensed a changing mood from certain people to whom I have spoken. The panic from the Government, who think that everything must be screwed down, and that we must go back to low tech and low wages, is absurd. The mood within the EC is that we must be more wary.
There are reasons why the signing of the social chapter may not have the dire impact on competitiveness that some have predicted. The social chapter covers areas where decisions are made by qualified majority voting Those areas involve safety, working conditions, information and consultation with workers, equality for men and women and matters of labour market inequalities. I have spent 25 years in business and in industry, and no business man would be afraid of that. To all intents and purposes, it would have a nil effect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to social security, the social protection of workers and the termination of employment contracts and the representation and collective defence of the interests of workers when they are unemployed. There is a long list, which I cannot go through.

557
I believe that many of those areas would undoubtedly increase industrial costs if we were to go wild in Europe. I do not believe that we will go wild, but if we did, the Government could have a veto. The Government's opt-out may have lost that influence, and I regret that. Other issues, such as pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose a lock-out are not even included in the social legislation.
Another reason why signing the social chapter may not make much difference is that many of its powers already exist under the treaty of Rome, and were extended by the Single European Act. Those are social powers that have been agreed within the Conservative party and the Government, and all the major decisions have been taken.
For example, the EC directive on the protection of pregnant women was opposed by the Government, as it supposed to increase costs. That is absurd, and has now been included in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. The draft directive on the working time limit of 48 hours will probably become legislation, contrary to what the Minister has said. Both the examples have nothing to do with the social chapter. The fact that both measures were opposed shows the rather pathetic priorities of the Government.
The Prime Minister played on the argument that, if Britain is within the social dimension, we will be in a position to be involved in the drafting of social chapter measures. The Government will not be in that position now. If one looks at the 1989 social action programme, however, one can see that it did work as far as the Government's priorities were concerned. The pregnant women directive reduced the measure from full pay to sick pay, and changes will also occur in the legislation for the 48-hour working week. The Government can do it if they want. I see no reason why Conservative Members are afraid of the social chapter, which will have little impact.
I should like the Minister to respond to another point made by the Prime Minister, who said emphatically that we must be in the heart of Europe to be able to influence things. I know of certain United Kingdom multinational companies which have pointed out that, without the United Kingdom influence which will now be lost because of the opt-out, social policy will be determined by the other 11 member states.
That policy will be implemented in the branches of those companies on the continent. In practice, however, the United Kingdom will have to carry out the policy that has been agreed by the other 11. There must be some uniformity within a company. I refer to multinationals, which are large companies.
6.46 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: It is a great pleasure for me that you have called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful. It is 22 years ago this week that I had the pleasure of resigning from a Conservative Government to oppose this country joining the EC. I know that you were still at school at the time, but it is interesting to look back 22 years to see what I was saying. I was, of course, regarded as mad by most people.
I said that our joining the EC would have an adverse ect on trade. We have had a deficit in our trade with rope since then of £100,000 million. I thought that our
558
joining would mean, unfortunately, that we would not be able to solve the problem of food prices, and that the poor would be hit. We know that the common agricultural policy is now wholly out of control, and no one can do anything about it.
I thought that our joining would destroy the Anglo-American alliance. We can see how our friendship and co-operation with the USA has been undermined almost every day. I said that our joining would destroy jobs, and we can see that Europe's share of world trade is going down and down. Jobs are being destroyed, and people are suffering. Finally, of course, I said that our democracy would be undermined. It has been, largely by the treaty of Rome, and it will be more so if the Maastricht treaty goes through.
As one of the few remaining rebels, I shall not be voting for the amendment, because I am in favour of the social chapter. The amendment does not say that, but rather that it will not be possible to ratify the treaty until the Government say that they want to sign the social chapter. Should I worry? Far from it. We had the clearest statement from the Chancellor during the Budget speech that Britain would never sign the social chapter.
The Government—I am sure that those on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State for Employment will agree—are never to sign the social chapter, and the amendment says that there can be no ratification until the Government say they are to agree to the social chapter. Is not that the ideal thing for someone to vote for who does not like the Maastricht treaty?
In fairness, I do not see why everyone is so worried about the social chapter. I have heard hon. Members say that it would cost us millions, and that it would put up costs because there would be a 48-hour working week. As has been found throughout the treaty, that is a load of rubbish. There is hardly anything in the social chapter whatsoever. The only new provision relates to social security, and it is subject to unanimity. There are three small items, one relating to men and women, that are already covered by the court through the majority voting.
If any hon. Member is worried about majority voting, he should look at the Maastricht treaty. There he would see massive areas such as visas, youth training, trans-European networks, telecommunications, distortion of competition, health, education, culture, third-world development, consumer protection and cohesion. For all those, majority voting will be introduced. If the Minister, who seems to be happy, is worried about majority voting, let him worry about all of it that is contained in the Maastricht treaty, which is destroying the basis of our democracy.
The sad fact is that, on the social chapter, there has been flag-waving between the parties. The Conservatives have been saying that it is a dreadful thing, and were not we glad that they had got us out of it? Labour said that, because the Conservatives had got us out of it. it must somehow be a good thing. I wish there had been some honesty in debate.
Both sides should have accepted that there is precious little in the social chapter at all. The only new thing relates to social security and is subject to unanimity, and a small extension of majority voting. Even in those areas, I believe that the EC will use the powers contained in the Single European Act.
You must be fed up hearing my speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you are a patient man. I remind you

559
that, during debates on the Bill, I asked the Government six times to tell me anything that could be brought in under the social chapter that could not have already been brought in under the Single Europe Act or the treaty of Rome. I have not had an answer. It is clear, however, that some hon. Members—despite assurances from me, and although they have not had the pleasure of reading the Maastricht treaty—are worried about the social chapter. If they are worried about the social chapter and if, by a remote chance, we are successful in carrying the amendment—I and possibly one other rebel remain—they should join me in voting the main motion down. I shall be glad to do it because, as the Government have said so often, they are worried about the social chapter.
We should worry more about ratification. That is what the amendment is about. We should ask ourselves what right we have to say that ratification should go ahead when the treaty surrenders vast powers of our democracy. We hear the Labour party and the Conservative party shouting at election time about their economic policy. If Maastricht is ratified, the same thing will happen even if the Communist party or the National Front wins the next election. Economic policy will be laid down by central institutions, and there will be nothing that we can do about it.
Some people, particularly people in the Whips Office, are hopeful. People say, "We know that it has gone wrong. We know that is is a mess. But we now have a new Administration who will change things." I appeal to them to ask themselves how the Government can change things. We know that half the member states of the European Community receive a great deal of money from it. Only a small number, including Britain, put money in. Where is the incentive for change?
Even if people doubt me and remain hopeful because the people in Europe are all nice people who want to do nice things, I ask them to consider where the progress is on the common agricultural policy. Time and time again in the House, I have heard Agriculture Ministers say that they have achieved a new formula, new arrangements and reform. They say that things will be better. Every single year it gets worse and worse. Today, the food mountains are the highest that they have ever been. The expenditure next year will be about £6 billion more than it was last year.
Sadly, the consumers and the poor people—the people we should worry about—face extra costs of £20 a week. If we believe that reform is possible, why has it not happened with the CAP? I ask those who say that we can reform the Community why we should pass over all the power and extra money to the EC without stopping to think.
The tragedy of the treaty and of the debate tonight is that the parties have grown apart from the people. If one asks people whether they believe that Maastricht will do good or harm, the majority will probably say that they do not like it, and that they want a referendum. I believe that it will undermine our country and our democracy if we shove through a massive new transfer of power and money without asking the people what they think.
I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to remember the issue at stake. Let us not have silly, squalid arguments about the social chapter. The social chapter is basically meaningless compared with what we have already handed over. The real issue is that we simply not have the right to hand over huge freedoms and ntrols to boards, commissions and councils without
560
asking the people first. That is the issue for tonight. That is why I shall vote for the amendment, in the firm and secure knowledge that the Government do not want the social chapter. Let us all vote for an amendment which proposes no ratification without the social chapter.
The Maastricht treaty will increase protectionism. It will be bad for jobs and bad for people. It will increase the amount of money that we hand over to Europe. It will be bad for poor people and for employees. It will increase the costs of production in Britain. That will destroy jobs. Having listened to all the debates on the treaty, we should stop and think. The right thing for us to do is vote for the amendment and then vote against the motion, as amended. We should spend the summer period rethinking. The Government may say that they want to go ahead. They may do some deal with someone. That is a matter for them.
The Maastricht treaty is going through at a time of economic hardship for Britain and Europe. The EC seems to be getting worse in every possible way. At such a time, we should stop and think. After we have stopped and thought, we should ask the people. Let us remember that the power and freedom do not belong to us. They do not belong to thin or fat, old or young politicians. They belong to the people of Britain.
That is why we should vote for the amendment tonight. Let us remember that we have no right whatever to ratify or approve anything which involves a transfer of power unless we ask the people first. Let that be our intention tonight. Let us ask the people. Let us seek their views, and remember that the country belongs to them.
6.54 pm
Mr. John Hume: Today's debate has obviously and understandably attracted a great deal of attention. The forecast that the vote will be close has focused attention on the smaller parties in the House and in particular on my honourable colleagues from Northern Ireland. It has been suggested that the Government may attempt to purchase their votes. I hope that my colleagues will be wise enough—as I know that they are—to recognise that if one is bought on Thursday, one can be sold on Monday. If the Government are prepared to engage in such unprincipled behaviour, they would not step back from doing so again on a future occasion.
However, I have been assured by Ministers that they are principled and that no offers of any description have been made to my honourable colleagues. It would be a serious mistake to deal with serious problems in my part of the world in that way. The only way in which we shall resolve those problems is to reach agreement on how we can respect our differences and work together for our common interests, which are considerable.
The debate this evening has great significance for my part of the world. As other hon. Members have said, the debate is not only about the social chapter but about European union. I am a strong supporter of the steady evolution towards European union. I should have thought that everyone in the Chamber wanted to see not only a united Europe but a united world and recognised that a united world was not a uniform world and a united Europe was not a uniform Europe. It is noticeable that those who oppose the steady evolution of European union have uniform minds and wish to impose their uniformity on society.

561
It is interesting to look at the people across Europe who join the so-called sceptics. They include the National Front in France, the neo-Nazis in Germany and the extreme communists. Those people believe in imposing their will on the rest of the people. That is the mind-set that created two world wars and imperialism. The world is still suffering from both. European union is emerging from that. It is a difficult process, but one that we should all pursue steadily.
When I speak about European union, I often ask people to cast their minds back 50 years. For the second time in a century, bombs were falling everywhere across Europe and 35 million people lay dead. If someone had said then, "Don't worry—in 50 years we shall be in this Chamber voting for European union among those peoples," people would have said that that person should be locked up. The fact that we are moving towards European union is one of the great achievements of human history.
Conflict has been ended by the adoption of the simple principle that difference does not threaten us but enriches us. The answer to difference is not conflict or war. Nor is it to impose one's view on other people. It is acceptance and accommodation of difference. That is not an easy task. The peoples of eastern Europe are suffering severely today as a result of the mentality of uniformity which seeks to impose on them a certain view.
I find the Government's case on the social chapter difficult to understand. They have said that the approach to European union of staying out of the Community was a mistake. Now they propose staying out of the social chapter, leaving us behind again. That is something of a contradiction. I do not understand it.
Britain is one of the biggest contributors to the European Community. Britain has bought a first-class ticket, but asks that the poorer people of this land should not take full advantage of it. By rejecting the social chapter, the Government are telling people to buy a first-class ticket but to travel in the luggage compartment. The Government tell us that we suffered because we were not in the Community at the start. Shall we not suffer from not being included in the social chapter at the start, shaping the whole thing? We are told that by staying out of it we shall be more competitive. My part of the world has the lowest wage rates in the United Kingdom; it also has the highest unemployment. If we provide minimum wage rates for our working people, there is no logic in suggesting that that will create higher unemployment. The lowest wage rates and highest unemployment in my part of the world were there before the troubles started, so that argument does not stand up at all.
A more fundamental point is that in this day and age we are living through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world—the technological revolution. It is the biggest since the industrial revolution, and it is making a fundamental change in our whole way of life. In the industrial revolution, the real wealth was created by the labour and sweat of people; in today's technological revolution, wealth is being created by fewer and fewer people.
As a result, the role of the state in looking after the welfare of its people must totally change. At the end of the ty, if there is all the money and land in the world but no
562
human beings, then it will all blow away. We should care for human beings at every level of society. Unfortunately, the Government, with their Reaganomics and Thatcherism, are going in the direction of the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest, rather than going in the direction that we should be going, where the state takes much more responsibility for the welfare of all its people.
The social chapter is about ensuring that there are minimum wage levels, and that we care for the employed, the unemployed, the elderly and the sick. The whole concept of European union is that humanity transcends nationality, and that we have moved beyond the nation state and are living in an interdependent world. Unless we are in there at all levels, shaping that interdependent world, we shall lose out.
7.1 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—for whom I have great affection, not least because he is my parliamentary pair —will forgive me if I do not go down the line that he has taken.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's criticism of my hon. Friends and myself—the so-called Euro-sceptics—I should make it clear that we have no connection whatever with right-wing or far-left organisations in Europe, and we resent that accusation.
Mr. Hume: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlisle: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
It is interesting to note that, as usual, most Conservative Members who are present are those of us who are suspicious of and opposed to the treaty. We have always attended in great numbers, and it is good to see so many here this evening.
I owe it to my hon. Friends and to the House to explain why I have decided to support the Government, and I do so with some pride. I was not bullied by the Whips; they did not delve into what is, after all, a pretty bland past to try to persuade me. I had an invitation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to attend at No. 10; I asked him to save the gin and tonic for later, because I had already decided to support the Government.
I remain totally opposed to the Maastricht treaty. I only wish that opportunities were still available for the House to reject the treaty. It appears at this stage that we are now virtually at the end of the road. It is perhaps not apt for us to vote for the social chapter purely on the basis of trying to postpone ratification of the treaty—which is not, of course, inevitable.
I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), but when he says that we are not voting for the social chapter, I know that if he were presented with an early-day motion by colleagues and asked to sign it, and the words of that early-day motion were the words on the Labour amendment, he would totally reject it. I cannot put my name to the amendment, or follow the Opposition into the Lobby.
My opposition to the treaty is know in the House and has been consistent. I was one of those hon. Members who declined to vote for the Single European Act, on both Second and Third Reading. There are people in the so-called sceptic mould who voted for that Act. That was

563
probably the start of our troubles, let alone the wretched treaty that the House has considered over the past few months.
I was critical of the Government, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister on their monetary line, the effect that that had on jobs in my constituency and the effect that the whole treaty will have on jobs and prospects in my constituency. My opposition to the treaty remains, and will remain throughout my parliamentary career, and I am representing the views of my constituents on that basis.
A wag asked me earlier whether I feel like Judas Iscariot at this particular time. I have received no pieces of silver, but if my body is found floating down the Thames at 10.15, so be it—although the Whips were anxious to make sure that it was 10.15 and not 9.15, so that I could be here to vote for the Government.
My main reason for supporting the Government and rejecting the social chapter is based on constituency experience and what the social chapter would do to businesses in my constituency. The classic case is the one that I cited earlier when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister allowed me to intervene. It is the case of a company that manufactures in my constituency but is so worried about its European set-up, and the manufacturing going on there, that it is seriously considering either closing down or withdrawing part of that manufacturing base in Europe because conditions and productivity in the United Kingdom were improving so much.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry; there is not enough time.
General Motors is the principal employer in my constituency. Earlier this week one of its executives told me about the cost of production and wages. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is not here to listen to this. The company's production and wages costs in Germany are $24·9 per hour; in the United Kingdom, they are $18·9 an hour. Before Opposition Members jump up and say that that is because we have sweated labour, let me add that the cost of production in the United States is $13·9 an hour. But the production lines in the United Kingdom are doing far better than both those major competitors.
If we adopt the social chapter tonight, by whatever means, it will be a devastating effect on a company like that in terms of increased costs, which we would then have to bear because of the social benefits that would have to be brought in under the terms of the social chapter—[Interruption.] It is unique for me to be barracked by my hon. Friends, who are some of my closest colleagues. I hope they will remain so after 10 o'clock. I remind them that, if the social chapter was adopted, this country would have a voice only by majority voting. As for social benefits, they will be brought in by those with their own interests at heart rather than the interests of the United Kingdom.
As to tactics, I understand my hon. Friends' intention, but I think that at this stage they are wrong. I apologise immediately to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr Cash) for describing it as futile—that was perhaps a little too strong$but in any parliamentary, policy or business argument, one can go so far and no further.
I feel that at this stage the ratification of the treaty ems almost inevitable; I bitterly regret that. As the Prime
564
Minister rightly said, there have been votes here and in another place and the Bill has been given Royal Assent. The Governmenet rightly assume that, even if Labour's amendment were passed—I sincerely hope that it is not —they could proceed with the treaty without the social chapter, and I support that. I do not want them to go ahead with the treaty, but if they must do so, it must be without the social chapter. They are entitled so to proceed as article 7 asks only for a resolution of the House.
I regret that there is no other way in which we can express our opposition to the treaty. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that the time has come to question our credibility as colleagues in this place, but I believe that we can take some pride and honour in the way in which we have changed the Government's mind.
In his speech to the 1922 Committee tonight, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged that we have come a long way and that we have fired many warnings shots across the Government, warning them that we must not again embark on such an exercise without the full-hearted consent of the Conservative Benches or the people.
Tonight's debate is purely on the social chapter. Those are the words on the Order Paper, which I believe will be voted on at 10 o'clock tonight and I want to reject them.
An hon. Member: You ratted last time.
Mr. Michael Carttiss: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The use of the word "rat" in this House is surely out of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I call Mr. Enright.
7.10 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: The saddest feature of the debate has been Conservative Members' lack of idealism and vision, which was typified by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). What is this vision of Europe? What are we doing? We are having a penny arcade that pays no regard to ordinary human beings—to those who are essentially the citizens of Europe.
What is the social chapter that we have been debating this afternoon? I certainly did not recognise it. The Prime Minister once stigmatised it as socialism by the back door. It has been suggested that it is the means by which the bureaucracy in Brussels can get into our system and do terrible things. That completely fails to recognise the continental tradition of a proper relationship with workers.
I shall quote from 1891, from a document that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) certainly knows very well indeed, Rerum novarum. He is talking about hours that are too long to work, about wages that are too low, about the necessity to consult workers to see how things can be resolved, about the just wage and how families should be supported.
Forty years on, we have similar quotes. I shall quote from Quadragesimo anno:
"In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family … But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong … It is intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost … Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately."

565
That is the whole spirit of two encyclicals. It is the whole spirit of the Christian Democratic Union, which has been joined by left-wing Conservative Members of the European Parliament. They feel extremely strongly about the matter and have said time and again that it is crucial that we should stay in the social chapter.
It is quite true that the social chapter, as it exists, is not nearly as strong as we would like. Certainly, relatively few costs are entailed in it. Any firm that cannot absorb those costs is not worth its salt.
One of the big problems with British industry, which has not been mentioned today, is the quality of management. The quality of far too much management is extremely poor and something must be done about it. Management courses are often almost like a catapult: they are not properly thought out. For real training in management, people must go to the continent or the United States. Nothing will be done about quality of management as long as managers are allowed to get away with their lackadaisical way of treating workers.
The Prime Minister talked about labour costs. That showed his attitude. Apparently, it is not human beings, men and women, who are trying to provide decently for their family: it is labour costs. He says that labour costs must be kept down, which is precisely the same as saying that we must keep the workers down. That simply will not do.
We undoubtedly need a minimum wage, and I have no qualms in talking about it. I talked about it in the last election. I well remember the manager of a factory who said, "You bring in a minimum wage when you get in in 10 days and I will have to close down." Only three months after the Government were returned, that factory closed down because it went bankrupt under the financial policies that were being followed.
Mrs. Currie rose—
Mr. Enright: I do not have time to give way; the hon. Lady will be allowed to speak later.
If we do not have the minimum wage because it is unaffordable, what do we have? It has been announced today that chairmen and directors of water boards are allowed to take a huge number of £1 shares and then sell them tomorrow for £3. That is £2 for no productivity whatever, which is a scandal. We are informed that that means that almost £2 million, which is totally unaccounted for, will go into the pockets of directors of water boards without any work being done for it, yet we cannot afford the social chapter. Is not that the veriest nonsense?
What are the freedoms for which the Government are fighting? What are those firms being allowed to do? They will be allowed to sack pregnant women. The minute a woman becomes pregnant, a firm will be able to sack her. Without the social chapter we will not be able to do anything to stop such behaviour. We know that it goes on and that it is widespread. Families will he paid starvation wages. Kiddies will be allowed to grow up in poverty and therefore in crime.
Those are the freedoms for which the Government are fighting. Their most famous victory was in securing the no-holidays provision. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that people had to start working seven days a week. When all car dealers start to
566
work seven days a week, that will indeed be the day. An agreed maximum week of 48 hours is not too much to ask for.
I well recall a strike against compulsory overtime in a liquorice allsorts factory in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my mother led it. She worked there to ensure that we had an education, because, as a railwayman, my father was not paid enough. She refused to work compulsory overtime and leave families outside —the majority of workers there were women. We are debating such social conditions. Unless we have the social dimension to Europe, Europe itself will perish.
We have talked a lot about the democratic deficit, but we are concentrating on the social deficit, and it is entirely correct that we do so. There is a social deficit in Europe which we must plug. We must not plug it only by this safety net. That is all it is, a sort of safety net, which is happily accepted by those who agree with the social market. Frankly, it is happily accepted by a large number of Conservative Members who want a free vote and would vote for the social chapter. There are no two ways about it, because one can hear the European Movement happily expressing it.
There is a social deficit in Europe, but above all there is one in this country. Of course there has been internal investment and investment has come into the country, but hon. Members fail to mention that three times as much investment has gone to the continent instead of coming here, and that is a serious problem which should be properly analysed.
Twenty per cent. of those who are classified as poor in the Community live in this country. That is not a cause for complacency or contentment while the Government are talking about deregulation, and getting rid of regulations here, there and everywhere—if they were only red tape I would be entirely in favour. The Government are pushing the poor further down. They are deregulating the entire catering industry so that they can burn and poison people and get away with it. That is a disgrace.
7.21 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: I respect the views of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on Britain's place in Europe, and largely share them. I was especially dismayed, therefore, by his backward-looking speech. It reflected that of the Leader of the Opposition, who took us back to 1909, whereas the hon. Gentleman took us back to 1891. I did not recognise the Dickensian portrayal of the so-called social deficit that he alleged exists between this country and the rest of the continent of Europe. As he well knows, that is completely misleading.
The House and the other place have debated in great detail the Maastricht treaty as negotiated, successfully and skilfully, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and time and again they have approved those provisions. No Chamber in the European Community has given the treaty anything like the detailed examination to which it has been subjected here. It is right, therefore, that we should have proceeded to approve the treaty, and I welcome the fact that it has now been given the Royal Assent. It is right that the motion as laid down in the treaty and passed by the House, and the motion standing in the name of the Government, should be approved.
It would, however, he wrong for the House to accept the amendment tabled in the name of the Labour party.

567
That would first require a complete revision of the treaty, because it would be materially changed. Much more important than that procedural fact is the fact that it would seriously damage the interests of United Kingdom workers. Most of those who advocate adherence to the social chapter have recourse to the sort of Dickensian rhetoric that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hemsworth. We have heard the usual cliché, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the leader of the Labour party, descended—talk of Britain becoming the sweatshop of Europe. Everyone knows, in the Chamber and outside, that there is no question of Britain being the sweat shop of Europe. On the contrary, to put it as kindly as possible, anyone who suggests that is being disingenuous.
We must ensure that the workers are protected from losing their jobs and from the damaging implications of the introduction of the social chapter, which have been pointed out by every employers' organisation in the country. They are the people who know. The fascinating exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment demonstrated that European employers share the same view. That was game, set and match to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Mrs. Currie rose—
Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend knows that I have only the time limit allowed to me. I hope that she will forgive me for not giving way.
My hon. Friends who have shown some inclination to vote for Labour's amendment, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is not in his place at the moment, recognise—possibly even more than some of the rest of us do—the enormous damage that the social chapter would do to jobs and employees in this country, but seem determined to follow that unwise course because of their deep dislike of the Maastricht treaty.
I can only believe that that dislike is based, contrary to what they insist, on a fundamental misunderstanding of what was achieved in the negotiation of that treaty and what has developed and been worked into the system since it was negotiated in Maastricht. Virtually all the developments since then have been in the direction of the sort of Europe that the vast majority of us on both sides of the House wish to achieve: a Europe where national identities are respected, a Europe of allies where the national interests of national states can be protected but the benefits of union developed. That is the treaty that they resolutely refused to recognise.
For six weary months, as we all painfully know, those hon. Members allowed their anxieties to be displayed in Committee in the Chamber. It is worth remarking, that there were about 240 words in the European Communities (Amendment) Bill as first drafted, but it spent six months in Committee—one month per 40 words. However important those words are—I yield to no one in accepting their great importance—it does not take six months to negotiate a Bill of 240 words. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends felt so strongly about particular amendments that it took them two or even three hours to explain their objections to or support for them.
The normal reaction to a performance of that nature would be dismay at the lack of clarity and powers of expression of the hon. Member who was speaking. Sadly,
568
it has led to loss of the Chamber's prestige, and everyone outside the House now has a poor view of its capacity to deal with important issues. The irony is that the very hon. Members who profess to be deeply concerned about the dignity and power of the Chamber have contributed to that loss of status, and it is a loss to us all.
It is especially ironic that hon. Members who have used the parliamentary procedures that we are all privileged to enjoy have been at the forefront of that charge. In the past day or two they have been helped in seeking further delay by the person whom I might call the "Lord of lost causes", the noble Lord Rees-Mogg, who has so long been a prophet of doom. He is an espouser of hopeless quests and the gentleman who, in a notable article in The Times in May, suggested that he knew what happened on doorsteps, which those of us who know him had some difficulty in accepting.
That noble Lord and his offshore billionaire supporters seem determined to exercise their influence on the United Kingdom's right to develop an important relationship with the European Community, and are trying to get the courts to frustrate the strongly expressed will of Parliament. Were the issue not so vital, it would be hilarious for a former editor of The Times to have made himself a suitable subject for the fourth leader of that newspaper, rather than performing the distinguished role that he ought to be playing.
A fog was created around the Maastricht treaty, but that fog has now cleared and the issues are clear. The first of those issues is that the Maastricht treaty, as negotiated by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, is good for Britain. The second is that the social chapter, as now on offer, is potentially bad for Britain and British workers. Therefore, it is clear that all hon. Members should support the Government motion and resist the Labour party's amendment in the Lobby tonight.
7.32 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has failed to explain the central problem that confronts the Government he supports: how can the Government, who claim to be at the heart of Europe, exercise influence by opting out of basic and fundamental policies? Conservative Members have consistently claimed that the social chapter opt-out was a negotiating triumph for the Prime Minister at Maastricht. They also say that it is not only in Britain's interests, but those of the whole Community, to resist the social chapter.
The Conservatives claim that the opt-out protects Britain from the alleged costs of the social chapter, but no proper statistical evidence of those costs has ever been presented. We have had some back-of-the-cigar-packet figures from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, there has been no evidence to explain why, when at Maastricht the Prime Minister refused to agree to the social protocol, the other 11 countries went to extraordinary legal lengths to ensure that they could pass European legislation to give effect to the provisions of the social chapter.
At previous intergovernmental conferences, negotiations have generally continued until agreement is reached, with countries recognising that the resulting compromise contains elements with which they are happy and items that they oppose. They were content with compromise, viewing it as the only means of making progress. The social

569
policy opt-out was a significant departure from that process. Unlike a parallel agreement allowing the British Government to opt out of economic and monetary union, the social policy opt-out emerged only during the negotiations at Maastricht. That opt-out appears to have been no more than a convenient political fix—a political solution without regard to the complex constitutional questions that it created.
The immediate consequence of the opt-out was an agreement by the other 11 member states on the social protocol. That addition to the treaty was necessary to allow the remainder of the 11 member states to have the opportunity of passing European legislation to give full effect to the social chapter. The fact that the other 11 countries were prepared to go to such lengths to achieve their objective demonstrates their determination to implement the social chapter and nails the lie that Britain is leading the way in Europe.
Britain's refusal to accept the social chapter gave any other country in the Community that had doubts about the social chapter a perfect opportunity to opt out as well. I recognise that such action would have killed the idea of protecting social rights in the Community. The opportunity was available to them, but what happened? Governments of the left and of the right and coalition Governments of the centre rejected that opportunity unanimously. Every one of the other 11 countries was determined that killing the idea of protecting social rights should not happen—they preferred to agree the social protocol among themselves rather than allow the British Government's intransigence to frustrate their social policy plans.
The first constitutional consequence of the social chapter opt-out means that Britain's people will be less well protected in the Community and under European law than are their continental and Irish counterparts. It follows that there will be a development of a separate legal system in the community. That system will apply to the 11 member states that have adopted the social protocol and have agreed laws under its provisions, while Britain will once again be on the outside, looking in. That will inevitably cause confusion in the legal system of the Community. It will mean that, instead of having a single system of European law, with the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg applying it, the Court will be forced to interpret directives made under the social protocol in a different way from those made with the unanimous approval of all 12 member states.
What will be the effect of the decisions? Will they apply to all 12 countries, to the British Government who have opted out of the social protocol or simply to the 11 countries that have agreed to the protocol? There will be an absurd state of affairs brought about by the deliberate policy of the British Government. How could they claim to be at the heart of Europe and the European Community when their decisions had destroyed a basic legal and constitutional principle of the European Community—that a single system of law should apply equally to all is citizens?
It appears inevitable that, at some stage, the opt-out will be challenged by the European Court of Justice. It follows from that—perhaps in the light of the Court's decision on the proposals for a European economic area
570
—that the European Court of Justice will state that the opt-out cannot stand constitutionally. Therefore, either directly or indirectly, the United Kingdom will be forced to accept the social protocol and the social chapter. The social policy opt-out will then be revealed as no more than the cheap political fix that I described and not a negotiated triumph.
If the legal and constitutional arguments at the European level appear remote, similar issues undoubtedly apply in the context of our constitution. British citizens who work for Ford or ICI in this country will enjoy different standards of social policy protection from their continental counterparts who work for the same organisations elsewhere. Should a continental country fall short of the standards set out in a directive which passed under the social protocol, continental and Irish citizens will be able to appeal to their own courts and, ultimately, to the European Court of Justice. The same process will not be available to British citizens, who will be denied rights before the British courts and, ultimately, in European law, before the European Court of Justice. They will be denied basic rights available to every other citizen in the European Community.
That is why it is crucial for the House of Commons to signal clearly its determination to carry the Labour amendment. It requires the British Government to show their willingness to adopt the social protocol. Such a clear statement by the House of Commons appears, sadly, to have caused further constitutional difficulties for the Government. In the past few weeks we have seen a series of briefings and statements attributed to the usual anonymous Government sources suggesting that, even if the House of Commons recommends the adoption of the social protocol before ratification, the Government will ignore that recommendation.
In so doing, the Government would strike at the very heart of our unwritten constitution; they would strike at the basic principle set out by the leading constitutional authority, Professor Dicey. He said:
"The one essential principle of the constitution is obedience by all persons to the deliberately expressed will of the House of Commons in the first instance, and ultimately to the will of the nation as expressed through Parliament."
That applies to the Government, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and everyone else in this country who supports our constitution.
But the Government lawyers have apparently advised the Prime Minister that he can proceed to ratification whatever the view or opinion of the House of Commons. Not for the first time, the Government appear to be relying on conveniently timed legal advice to get them off the painful Maastricht hook. Such advice in only a partial account of a complicated legal picture.
It is clear that treaty-making in this country is subject to what is known as the Ponsonby rule—a practice introduced by a Labour Government in April 1924 to require the Government to lay treaties before Parliament for 21 days before they could be ratified. The primary purpose of that rule was to ensure publicity and to end any risk of a Government using the royal prerogative to conclude secret treaties. It may appear ironic that such a rule should apply to the Maastricht treaty, which has perhaps received more publicity than any other treaty in our history.
The Ponsonby rule is relevant because it has always been assumed that, during the 21 days, it would be open to

571
the House of Commons to object to a treaty, even though it had been made under the prerogative. That is the closest that the British constitution comes to the constitutional arrangements available in most other countries. Elsewhere, treaties can be ratified only after a parliamentary process which allows for a democratic vote either to approve or reject the treaties. In the past, Parliament has specifically been invited to approve important treaties such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in 1949 and the 1954 agreement, which brought Germany into NATO and the Western European Union.
It is inconceivable that the Government could have gone ahead without parliamentary support on those occasions. That reinforces the view that the ultimate purpose of the approach is to obtain the approval of Parliament for a treaty and that, without such specific approval, the Government of the day should not proceed to ratification.
The relevance of the Ponsonby rule to the Maastricht social chapter is clear. If Parliament has the power to approve or disapprove ratification of a treaty, it must have the power to approve ratification subject to a condition —in this case, the acceptance of the social chapter. That issue goes to the heart of our constitution. We have no written constitution against which the actions of our Government can be measured and, where appropriate, tested before the courts. In those circumstances, it has always been left to the good sense of Ministers to behave within the basic principles of our constitution—above all else, giving effect to the wishes of Parliament and the House of Commons. If our Government fail to follow that principle, our parliamentary democracy will be put at risk.
7.39 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yesterday Madam Speaker gave us a ruling. As an Ulsterman, I am glad that tonight I am speaking under the freedom of the Williamite revolution settlement. Some people in Northern Ireland will smile when they think of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) enjoying that liberty, too, under the Williamite revolution settlement. It puts this debate into a European context.
Those who oppose the Maastricht treaty cannot be blamed for the fact that this debate is taking place. A lot of blame has been spoken of, as though those who oppose the treaty are responsible for it. That is completely untrue and must be nailed immediately as a falsehood.
The Prime Minister is responsible for our being here tonight. When he could not manipulate a majority for the Bill when it was before the House, the Whips had the clever idea that a special provision should be included in the Bill: that the Act should come into force only when each House of Parliament had come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown concerning the adoption of the protocol on social policy.
We found next that the Government questioned the morality of those who voted against them. The Prime Minister and his Whips examined the souls of each Member going into the Lobby and said, "But he is going into the Lobby because he is against the treaty, not because he is against the social chapter, so he should not be included. That is not really a majority against us."
I have sat in this House for many years and have vigorously disagreed with various people. They, even more
572
vigorously, disagreed with me, but we went into the same Lobby because of particular issues. No man has the right to say to a Member of this House, "You have no right to vote the way you intend to vote tonight because of certain things you dislike in an amendment." Those of us who are against the treaty have the right to say that the Act cannot come into force because each House has to come to a resolution. Do the Government think that those who oppose the treaty can be forced into the Lobby? Therefore, my colleague and I will vote against the treaty being implemented. That is why we are here.
Much has been said about the social chapter. It is a pity that more hon. Members were not in the Chamber to listen to the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Not one of the points that he made has been challenged. He explained just what the social chapter really means and what its limitations are. Many hon. Members would be far happier if there were many more safeguards for employees than those that are to be found in the social chapter, but that is not the issue that those who oppose the treaty are here for tonight.
People may say to us, "Why do you oppose the treaty?" We believe that it strikes at the very heart of our democracy. I am here tonight because the people of the south of Ireland said, in a referendum, "You must have the treaty." If they had said no, the treaty would have been killed. I am here tonight because the people of France voted in a referendum. The result was poor, but there was a majority for the treaty. They did not examine the morality of their souls. Their souls were all right, so long as they voted the right way. Denmark had a referendum. The people of Denmark voted against the treaty, so they had to have another chew at the cherry. They were given certain concessions.
That is why we are here tonight. Those who have taken part in the debates are entitled to take as long as they want to discuss this issue.
I do not agree that our House has been debased. I am a Member of the European Parliament. My European colleagues say, "That's a great Parliament you have over there. You really go into matters. In our local parliaments we would never be given the opportunity to examine Bills in the way that you examine them." So I think that this Parliament has enhanced itself. People realised that we were taking this issue seriously.
Under the Act that we were told by Madam Speaker is the foundation of Parliament's authority, the freedom of speech and debates and of proceedings in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament. However, the long hand of the European Court comes into this nation. The long hand of the European Court says, "We don't like what you did at Westminster. We do not approve of what you are doing and we have the power not only to question but to overrule what you are doing." That is at the very heart of the argument.
If the people of the Republic of Ireland, France and Denmark had the right to say yea or nay to the treaty, the people of the United Kingdom should be given the same privilege and the same opportunity to say whether they want it or not.
I am afraid that fear of the people hangs over the Government. That is why they are not prepared to go to the people. I do not believe that they would get a majority. Therefore, they are using every means to oppose a

573
referendum. I, as a Member of this House, resent the fact that the Government have not told us what, if they do not get approval for their motion, they intend to do. They should be duty bound to say, "We cannot ratify." They should obey their own Act. If the Government are hoist by their own petard, there they will have to hang.
The Government have tried in many ways to flout the wishes of the House of Commons. It is all very well to talk about majorities at other stages of the Bill. I was here for the Second Reading of the original common market Bill. I know what happened. There was a tremendous fight in the House. I saw the then leader of the Liberal party beaten over the head by a Labour Member until he was nearly flattened into his seat. I was approached and offered all things by the Government, if I would change the way I voted. I was threatened that if I did not change the way I voted, the Government might resign and we might have a Labour Government. No Government could be more terrible for Northern Ireland than the Tory Government who brought in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Even the Labour party could do no worse than that.
The Government have not approached me. I have no links with them. My party has a policy on this issue and we shall stand by it. I hope that tonight the Maastricht treaty will sink, not swim.
7.48 pm
Mr. John Hutton: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was right to say that we are having this debate because the Government themselves accepted the need for it. If the Government had felt that there was no need for it, they should have opposed the amendments at the time that they were proposed in Committee. It is utterly disingenuous, therefore, although typically in character, for the Government to claim that the debate is a red herring and that it is inappropriate for the House to discuss issues concerning the protocol on social policy.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not take that view. It is entirely appropriate that Members of the House should have the opportunity to express their collective view and opinion about the merits, or otherwise, of the social protocol. It is one of the issues that we must discuss during this debate. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House have concentrated to a large extent on that issue, to which I shall return later.
The debate also raises other important issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) said, one of those issues is the right and power of the House to assert its authority over the Executive. It is very important, especially after 14 years of one-party rule, that Members of Parliament assert their sovereignty and their right to tell the Executive that we have a collective opinion and that it is our opinion that counts. I am therefore astonished that the Prime Minister has felt unable to say that to the House and that he will not necessarily accept the view of the House of Commons. It raises profound constitutional issues relating to the sovereignty of Parliament and the rights of hon. Members.
Hon. Members are elected to speak on behalf of our constituents and, on occasions, to use our collective power
574
to express our opinion to the Government of the day. We have a right to expect the Government of the day to honour a majority decision in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield also drew the House's attention to Professor Dicey's seminal work on constitutional law. It is a sign of the times that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to Professor Dicey earlier in the week, Conservative Members laughed. Clearly, they no longer read books. If they had read Professor Dicey's work, they would have understood exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend was saying. It is not appropriate for the Government of the day to refuse to accept the collective will and wisdom of the House of Commons.
There cannot be any doubt, in terms of the constitutional legality, that we have the right to direct the Government as to how they exercise the royal prerogative. It has been resolved in constitutional law and is not an issue. If, as I hope, the House expresses the wish that it wants the social protocol to form part of the Maastricht treaty, and for it then to be implemented in United Kingdom law, the Government are duty bound to accept it. In that sense, the will and authority of the House to exert its power over the Executive should perhaps be the issue that is uppermost on hon. Members' minds and the focus of our debate. I hope that we make that judgment later, not only for the substantive issues raised by the social protocol but for the status of the House.
The debate has rightly and perhaps inevitably focused on the merits or otherwise of the social protocol. I have listened to most of the contributions to the debate and have been dismayed by the lack of honesty revealed by Conservative Members. It is wholly bogus, and rather silly and sad, for Conservative Members to claim that the social protocol will somehow price British workers out of work. It is pathetic and absurd to hear them say that it is the Government's duty to protect British workers from the benefits of improved social and employment protection. There is no doubt that British workers need and deserve improved social and working conditions. The benefits of the social protocol are widely accepted around Europe by Governments of all political persuasions—Christian Democrat, Conservative, Liberal and Socialist; only this reactionary and rather bigoted Government have refused to accept the primary need for the protocol.
The case for the social protocol is simple. We all know that Europe is undergoing fundamental and profound changes. European business under the single European market and the convulsions that are taking place during the reorganisation of Europe's industrial base make the case strongly for a social dimension to accompany any changes. It is inappropriate for hon. Members to concentrate exclusively on the notion that Europe is all about markets. It is not only about markets; it is a community of people and the common interests of those people in making valuable and sustainable social progress. That is the case for the social protocol. It is regrettable that the case against it has been so flagrantly exaggerated and over-egged by Conservative Members.
The terms of the social protocol are elementary and straightforward. They offer basic employment protection measures which will improve the working environment of and the terms on which people are employed and will advance equality between the men and women who are in employment. It is distasteful that, in the last few years of the 20th century, the House still seems locked in the

575
Dickensian attitude that it is inappropriate for us to extend any measure that will improve the social and employment conditions of British workers. It is contemptible and those outside who are listening to our debate will also find it so.
We can conclude only that the social protocol has become a totem pole around which the Government are making their case in favour of the Maastricht treaty. The Government are telling the right wing of their party that they are standing firm against the European bureaucratic bandwagon whereas, in reality, they have already conceded huge chunks of sovereignty, jurisdiction and competence to the European Commission, rightly so in my opinion.
However, they are arguing simultaneously, that by accepting the Maastricht treaty, subject to the removal of the social protocol, they are remaining at the heart of Europe. That is not and cannot be true. We cannot be at the heart of Europe and go in the direction that the Community is taking when we have deliberately absented ourselves from matters relating to social policy, one of the key aspects of the Community's development in the 21st century.
It is naive for Conservative Members to pretend that the social protocol is out of date and represents yesterday's thinking. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) tried to create that impression, but, in fact, the social protocol is tomorrow's thinking. It is ridiculous for Conservative Members to continue to believe that social issues related to the construction of a new Europe are going to go away and that it is inappropriate for Members of the European Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the domestic Parliaments of member states to have a say in how social progress can be maintained and developed. The issue will not go away. If we are truly to play a full and integral role in the development of the Community in the coming years, we need to wake up to the reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield raised interesting questions about the legality of Britain staying out of the social protocol. Such questions undermine the Government's case. There will be substantive legal difficulties ahead if the Government refuse to adopt and embrace the social protocol. I name only two.
First, will our continued opt-out be unconstitutional under the treaty of Rome because it offends the principle of non-discrimination against European Community workers? It will be a running battle that the Government will fight and lose, as they have always lost such battles. Secondly, there is a case for saying that the opt-out will infringe the treaty's provisions relating to competition policy. Again, it is naive of the Government to think that they can escape the looming legal battles. There will be arguments and I hope that, if we cannot persuade Conservative Members of the strength and logic of our case, they will at least be forced kicking and screaming, as they often are, into the right way of thinking by other member states.
There is something absurd about the notion that the Government are playing a full integral role in developing the shape of the Community. They are not. How can they argue that when, every time the social protocol surfaces in the Council of Ministers., Ministers representing the United Kingdom have to absent themselves from the proceedings? It is absurd.
The logic and strength of the case in favour of the social protocol is overwhelming and self-evident. It is only
576
because of an outdated and clapped-out faith in their own argument that the Government manage to believe that they have won. In fact, they have lost the argument about the need for the social protocol. We have won it and I hope that, having won it, we shall go on to win the vote this evening.
7.58 pm
Mr. John Butcher: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to explain my reasons for voting Aye in the first vote and for voting against the motion as amended in the second vote. I owe this explanation to my hon. Friends and, in particular, to my right hon. and true Friend the Prime Minister.
I make it clear that I have always believed that it is possible to be against the Maastricht treaty but in favour of a different and better Europe. I shared the dream that everyone had in the 1970s. I was assured that there would be no loss of sovereignty as we opted for a free trade area. I also shared the dreams of our fathers who said that they did not want their children to fight in another European war.
I assert those things tonight, too, but retrospection is a great harbinger of wisdom. I think that if we examine Europe's economic record we shall in time come to the view that the salad days of Europe, the days of great concepts and economic initiatives, were already coming to an end by about 1980. As our continent's competitiveness has fallen, our share of world exports has declined by one fifth since 1980. Worse, there is a widening deficit in high-technology goods—in semiconductors, for example, which are the building blocks of virtually every industrial and commercial process in the western world today. Between 1982 and 1990 high-tech exports from Europe went up by the tiny margin of 2 per cent., yet imports increased by 7·7 per cent. per year.
The worst factor of all, and that which we in the House dread most—the reason why, in terms of social policy, we are here—is the rate of employment in our country and in our continent. In western Europe, unemployment is now 10 per cent., in the United States it is 7 per cent. and in Japan 2·3 per cent.
I fear that, if the methodology and the psychology in the treaty are perpetuated, there will be an inexorable drift towards protectionism, probably with France in the vanguard, with allies in Spain and, if Germany's difficulties continue, perhaps with allies even there, too, in the medium term.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Butcher: I shall not give way if there is still a 10-minute time limit on speeches. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the rule is still in force.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The 10-minute rule no longer applies.
Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend feel that in supporting the social contract he is doing anything for the people of Coventry and the rest of the west midlands, part of which I represent? By voting as he says he intends to vote, will he be doing anything for the industrialists who want to produce our goods in the most competitive way?
Mr. Butcher: The short answer to my hon. Friend's second question is yes. I grew up in the high-tech industries and I am proud of my continuing connections with them. If the 48-hour rule were brought in, it would not damage the so-called sweatshop industries as much as the high-tech industries. My hon. Friend would find that systems analysts, programmers, installation engineers and the people who commission huge electronic systems in our companies, who have to work all day and all night to tight deadlines, would be the class of people whose efficiency would be impaired.
I must also tell my hon. Friend that my vote tonight will not be in favour of the social chapter. My second vote will be against the social chapter; that is what the motions say, if we read them properly. I believe that in recording a vote against the social chapter I may do a little bit to delay the implementation of the treaty. If we do not want the social chapter, let us wipe the protocol out by wiping out the treaty. That protocol would advise the European Court of Justice on the ways in which it could bring in the social chapter by the back door to our industries and our companies, especially our high-tech manufacturing sector.
I have thought deeply both about the social chapter and about the future of the treaty itself. I am bound to say that there is a hint of arrogance in this Parliament. There is one French philosopher with whom I agree—a chap called Rousseau—who once said:
"the first prerequisite for learning is humility".
We must learn from our recent history. We must not assume that we in the House and in Europe are the sole controllers of events. Others have powerful views that contradict ours. If we do not mind their views and do not try to assess the future for Europe in the light of the consensus that will emerge there, we shall have failed ourselves, failed the House and perhaps failed the people of this country.
I believe that I have visited the heart of Europe. If we plot the geo-economic centre of Europe we find a little town that I know well, called Pirmasens. It is, literally, a small town in Germany. The people there do not hate the British, nor do they necessarily love us. I suppose that they get on with their own lives, and take notice of us only if we start to compete and to damage the competitiveness of their local companies. Their view of us can be summed up thus: "Where are your products?" That is their view of the British and that is the question that they ask.
I do not believe that the Maastricht treaty will deliver the level playing field that our successful industries require. I shall sit down later tonight having demonstrated that I am an optimist about our economic and industrial prospects. It is because I am an optimist that I do not want to see Europe dissolve into some dirigiste row, with the jockeying for position and the horse trading that takes place in a market that is no longer free.
The Germans have a concept that they give a typically German name—"das gesamtkonzept". Typically, they have a system and a methodology that they apply. Their political classes, using the gesamtkonzept, which is in contradiction to our own, say that there will be a federal Europe with strong systems. It will be interventionist and free trade will more or less govern its external relationships. The Gesamtkonzept holds stronger sway at the moment than does our concept of freely trading nations behind a common tariff barrier.
In France, too, there is a view described as "la préférence européene". That is an elegant phrase, but what
578
it really means is protectionism and protectionism not only for France but for the continent as a whole, if it finds the competitive climate too difficult for it and can find no other means of protecting the well-being of the people of France. I fear that if Germany's economic and political difficulties continue, it may move from a camp more or less allied to ours over to the French position of la préférence européene.
In Spain, too, there is a concept called "la cohesion" —cohesion. The Spaniards speak for the poorer nations of southern Europe and they wish to see central funds directed towards those countries to make up for their inability to compete in truly open free trade. La cohesion means grants and handouts for the poorer countries. That is another concept against which our Prime Minister will have to struggle. But although those concepts are embraced by the political classes of Europe, they are not necessarily shared by the peoples of Europe. A recent huge Europewide Euro-barometer poll found that only two in five Europeans were positively in favour of Maastricht.
If we are to amend the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act—I am in favour of doing so—this is not the way to do it. Some of my hon. Friends who may not count themselves as cynics or sceptics may prefer the term Euro-realists. I ask them to examine the treaty, because large chunks of it could have been incorporated into the Labour party manifesto at the general election and we would have fought it tooth and nail. We live in strange times.
Tonight there will be many ghosts in the Division Lobby, some friendly but some, shall we say, atavistic in their attitude to life. I believe that if events in Germany and Britain unhinge the Maastricht treaty there will be a rethink about how to amend those two earlier treaties. There will be, dare I say, a fresh start.
We should not be so unambitious as to believe that, if we voted against the treaty, we should somehow be sidelined. We will provoke a rethink. The terms under which all nations agreed to ratify the treaty were that, if one country, perhaps Germany—and, of course, no longer Denmark or Britain—were to go against the general trend, they would have to go back to the drawing board. That would be no bad thing given the figures that I outlined earlier.
However, I return to the ghosts and to my difficulty in saying to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that I remain his hon. Friend in every sense of the word. I ask him and the House to consider who will be in the Division Lobby with us tonight. The ghosts of past Europeans will be there.
My Conservative Friends will be sharing the No Lobby with the ghost of Colbert, the man who invented the methodology of the Maastricht treaty all those centuries ago. They will be sharing that Lobby with the rather clammy ghost of Richelieu, the man who thought that he could be the great arbiter of things European. but who ultimately failed. Perhaps we see his reincarnation in today's French President. They will also be sharing that Lobby with the ghost of Bismarck. As I am an admirer of A. J. P. Taylor's history, I ask all my hon. Friends to reread their dusty university books which were written by A. J. P. Taylor.
Bismarck knew that, when he created the Zollverein, that was the beginning of a political union. However, he did that for his country and his countrymen to unite the various German peoples. We want a Zollverein in Europe,

579
but we do not want a Europe united in the way that Bismark envisaged. In due course, nor will the German people.
As I share the Lobby with the live bodies of many Labour Members, I will comfort myself with the thought that there will be two ghosts with me. One will be the greatest Scotsman who ever lived. He was a man who won all the arguments and wrote in elegant prose. Although he is accepted throughout the world, he is still a prophet who has not been accepted in his own country. I am referring of course, to Adam Smith, who wrote "The Wealth of Nations". The title referred to the plural—to "nations", not to a single "nation". I hope that he will pat me on the back as I walk through to record my vote tonight.
I pay tribute to another ghost who will be with me tonight—an Anglo-Irishman called Edmund Burke. As I put my head on my pillow tonight, I will say to him, "I did my little bit when they tried to put the lights out," and I shall sleep well.
8.12 pm
Mr. Peter Mandelson: I do not share the judgment of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) about the Maastricht treaty, nor do I share in his eulogy to Adam Smith. However, we can all agree that the hon. Gentleman spoke with great sincerity and honesty as he expressed his views tonight. I pay him that tribute.
However, the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West marked him out from the contributions made by many of his hon. Friends. In particular, his speech marked him out in respect of that made by the Prime Minister, who showed himself utterly contemptuous of public opinion.
It is worth remembering that public opinion, by any measure of that opinion, is overwhelmingly in favour of the social protection, measures and benefits set in the social chapter. The Prime Minister showed himself to be almost as contemptuous of public opinion as he seems to be in danger of being in respect of parliamentary sovereignty and of our will tonight. That remains to be seen.
The Prime Minister's speech also revealed his abject lack of vision about Europe's future development. His speech was more barren and shallow than the kind of vision that we used to hear from Mrs. Thatcher. At least she had an idea of what she wanted to do in Europe. She at least had an idea about her destination, even though I and many of my hon. Friends profoundly disagreed with it. On the basis of his speech this afternoon, the same cannot be said of the present Prime Minister.
Probably the most important point to be revealed in the speeches made so far by Conservative Members relates to their views on the long-term future of the British economy and how we are to succeed in building real economic strength. Conservative Members are profoundly out of touch with reality, so much so that it is hard to believe that many of them speak to people who work in business or industry. It is hard to imagine that they even bother to read the many reports produced by Government Departments.
Did not the Department of Trade and Industry's competitiveness unit reveal only last week that our competitive position is so weak that Britain is now 18th of 24 countries in terms of national income per head? We are behind Finland, Iceland and Italy. We are falling to the
580
levels of Spain and Portugal in many of the ways, and for many of the reasons, described by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West. We are so unproductive that, according to a survey carried out by the London Business School and IBM, only 2 per cent. of United Kingdom companies achieve world-class standards of performance.
Yet the Prime Minister's argument against the social chapter today was that we are doing so well that we must not spoil our success by implementing the social chapter. He said that the social chapter would somehow ruin all the Government's good work in sorting out the problems of British manufacturing.
Given the relative industrial performance of Britain in relation to other EC member states, does not the Prime Minister think that there is a lesson that we can learn from the fact that the more successful countries have embraced the social chapter and have been practising its ideas arid methods of social support and protection for many years? In contrast, over the bulk of the past decade, we in this country have been experiencing a laboratory-controlled experiment of a labour market operating without rules. If the Government's case was right and lack of employment rights and standards produced greater or equal success, we should be economically booming by now. Manifestly, we are not.
Whatever incipient recovery may be beginning now, during the years of Britain's deregulated labour market, we have had the highest rising unemployment, the lowest levels of investment and the lowest growth anywhere in Europe. That is the testimony to the Government's failed policies for industry, in relation to employment and at the workplace. That is why the Government's approach to the social chapter and all its provisions is so wrong.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Gentleman's points are very interesting. Very close to my constituency, a port is rapidly growing which will be the second largest container port in Britain. That port will compete with Rotterdam. That investment was impossible to make while the dock labour scheme existed. Much of that kind of investment was chocked off by socialist proposals which it took a long time to get rid of under this Government.
Mr. Mandelson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the success of his constituents in attracting that investment. However, I hope that he is not suggesting that the national dock labour scheme is among the horrors, in the hon. Gentleman's terms, which are threatening to return to this country as a result of the social chapter. That is not the case, like so much else that Conservative Members claim.
Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mandelson: In a moment.
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has come in right on cue, because it suits the Government's case to exaggerate widly and to falsify the consequences of adopting the social chapter. At one time, Ministers said time and again that the social chapter would wipe out 750,000—they then changed it to 500,000—jobs at a stroke. They even claimed that 300,000 boys and girls would no longer be able to deliver newspapers as a result of the introduction of the social chapter in this country.
Their arguments became so ridiculous that at times our very future as a trading nation, not to mention the future

581
of western civilisation as we knew it, seemed to be at stake. How expedient and convenient it has been throughout all the hyperbole that has beens—
Mr. Marlow: Is not the real answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that if we are concerned about the social chapter—the point was made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats —if we are there, we can prevent what we might think are dreadful things from happening, but if we are not there they will happen, because they will be decided by the other 11 and be forced on us by other parts of the treaty?
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He will acknowledge that other treaty provisions are already in place which will enable those measures to be introduced via other routes.
It is very important to nail again many of the lies that have come—no doubt unwittingly—from Conservative Members tonight. An enormous amount of disinformation is purposely being pumped out by the Government —aided and abetted, I am sorry to say, by branches of the media, including the BBC in recent days.
The social chapter is a framework of ideas and goals. It is not a set of detailed obligatory rules. That is its advantage over the original social charter and the social action programme. The social chapter has had built into it the very flexibility and principles of subsidiarity which are apparently so favoured by the Government. The social chapter explicitly says that national laws and practices must be respected in applying the social chapter, particularly in respect of contractual relationships. It cannot be used in any way connected with laws relating to strikes and unions, despite what we have heard from many Conservative Members.
The fact that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and I have mentioned—I stress it again following my response to him—is that the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, regardless of the Maastricht treaty, have articles which present a series of open doors through which the social chapter's intentions can and will be implemented in this country. Whatever the outcome of our vote on the social chapter and the Maastricht treaty, the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, all the relevant articles are already in place, agreed by Ministers in the previous Government under Mrs. Thatcher and under the present Prime Minister.
The crucial difference, however, is that, without our signing up to the social chapter, Britain will not be able to influence the implementation of the social chapter in this country. We shall not be at the table to determine how, when and on what terms the social chapter will be implemented if we continue this futile and self-defeating opt-out. What on earth could possibly be the sense of that?
Of all the baseless arguments that I have heard, not only in this debate but throughout the Committee proceedings in which I was an active participant, probably the least defensible is the claim by some that, by adopting the social chapter, we shall harm inward investment. What frightens business people looking to locate in Britain is not that we might start to act and perform like the rest of Europe, but that we are so far on the fringe of Europe that Nye are becoming too little part of Europe. That is what frightens potential inward investors from Japan who want
582
to invest in Europe and in Britain. They want to invest in a Britain which is clearly part of the wider European Community.
What will put off potential inward investors is not that we observe elementary standards of social protection and benefits but that we fail abysmally to invest in the skills, talents and motivation of our work force. In the north-east, we have attracted Nissan and Fujitsu, and Stadium in my constituency, not because those companies are looking for a downtrodden, exploited, untrained, low-wage work force, but because they take seriously the need to put a lot into their work force if they are to get high motivation, high productivity and high skill back.
That is precisely the philosophy at the heart of the social chapter. The Government are grossly out of step and out of tune in rejecting it. They are out of step not least with business people in this country as well as potential inward investors.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why those wonderful Japanese companies came to Britain was because, if they did not come, the EC would deliberately make it more and more difficult for Japanese cars to come into this country? Although we welcome them, let us not forget that one reason why they came was that the EC is becoming more protectionist every day and it was keeping out Japanese cars and restricting the numbers more and more.
Mr. Mandelson: If that is true, it is precisely why we should continue to be a full and active participant in the European Community.
The industrial culture that I have described and the resulting enterprise that we need are absolutely vital if we are to succeed economically in Britain. That is how others have done it and are doing it in Europe and also in many emerging economies. People often describe the emerging economies of Asia, the Pacific rim and the far east as though they were mere sweatshop economies employing sweatshop labour. In fact, many of those countries are investing hugely in the education, training and development of their work forces.
That is what is so vital to success in the modern world, and that is what we must do if we are to get ahead and prosper again. That is why Labour's amendment should be strongly supported in the Lobby tonight.
8.27 pm
Mr. Michael Lord: Much has happened since the paving debate in the autumn that created such a close finish in the voting. Tonight I have heard many of the arguments that were deployed then. I particularly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). He spoke very well, and made some tremendous contributions to the debate. I shall not be with him in the Lobby tonight, but I think that he and I have thought very much along the same lines during most of these difficult months.
I have sat through almost all the debates in the House and in Committee, and I have made the odd contribution. No one is more opposed to the concept of the Maastricht treaty than I am, and no one is keener on the idea of a referendum. I believe that to impose this treaty on the people of this country without asking them first whether

583
they want this amount of power transferred from this House of Commons is something that we shall all live to regret.
In the referendum debate, I said that I believed that my vote that night would probably be the most important vote that I would ever cast as long as I was a Member of the House of Commons. I still believe that, no matter how important the vote tonight. I believe that my vote that night on a referendum to ask the British people about what we are doing was probably the most important vote that I would ever cast. So it is with enormous sadness that I am reluctantly forced to accept that the Bill for the Maastricht treaty has received Royal Assent and is now an Act. In fact, it has now received Royal Assent and is an Act.
I also believe very much that the social chapter issue is a separate matter altogether. I appreciate that, in terms of tonight's debate, it is linked to the Bill, but, if we are all honest with ourselves, there are two fundamentally separate issues before us. One is the Maastricht treaty and the other is the social chapter.
I simply cannot bring myself to vote for the social chapter, no matter how much of a purely political device it may be. Despite all that has been said tonight, I believe that it will damage British industry. It is clear from the debate that the social chapter, like so many of these things, can mean to any one of us what we want it to mean. Some people think that it is the end of the world; some people think that it is so trivial that they do not know why we are bothering with it. But I believe that it will have an influence on business life in this country.
This is one of the problems with the whole European idea. Some countries that have developed their industrial systems over centuries, whose industrial relations have been built up over a long time, all in individual and separate ways; and suddenly it is proposed that a uniform framework should be planted on all 12 nations. I cannot see how that can fail to bring in restrictions and create a great deal of harm. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the effect that it would have on companies such as ICI in my constituency. I really believe that it will be damaging if we vote for the social chapter.
Apart from that, we may think tonight that it is only a technicality, but we must remember the signals that that gives to people both in our own country and in the rest of Europe. There is no doubt at all that, when the dust settles, a vote for the social chapter here tonight will be seen as just that. We may try to explain that we hoped that something else would result, and that, as a result of that result, yet something else would happen. But it gets very convoluted and, if we are not careful, we will lose ourselves in the maze of technicalities.
I have thought very carefully about what this vote would mean, and I believe that it would be a vote for the social chapter. I believe that that is how my constituents, and indeed most of the country, would see it, and I am not prepared to go down that road.
I have sought to impede as much as possible the passage of the Maastricht treaty Bill through the House, but I honestly do not believe that voting for the social chapter will do any particular damage to the Maastricht treaty. I believe that, very sadly, as I have said, it will now be ratified. I believe that a vote for the social chapter tonight would do a great deal of damage both to our Prime Minister and to our Government. I really believe that, and it is time that the House acknowledged it.
584
I will not urge colleagues to follow my example in the Lobbies; there has been far too much urging of one kind or another over recent months. They obviously must, and will, decide for themselves what they will do. But I am quite sure that the European issue will not go away. There will be other battles to be fought, and I very much hope that on this side of the House we will fight them as a more united party.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West is right: many things are happening in Europe, and we will see great changes. He used the words "fresh start". I believe that a huge rethink is needed, and I hope that, as a country and as a party, we will take the lead in that fresh thinking.
One national newspaper started one of its articles today with the simple words:
"It is time to start talking about things other than Maastricht."
I believe that to be true. Huge problems face both our country and the world at the moment. We must, as a Government, get on with them. To prolong this process further will not merely damage the Government more, but damage its ability to govern.
That is why I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight against the social chapter.
8.33 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I have sat throughout the debate and listened intently to all the contributions. I have scribbled a few notes, and I would like to give the House the benefit of them this evening.
I speak as one who campaigned to come out of the Common Market at the time of the national referendum, but also as someone who realised over the years that it was unrealistic to maintain that stance. We have been in too long, and we have become embedded too deeply, to change now.
I suppose, too, that I was attracted by the improved conditions common throughout Europe that appear to be beneficial to European citizens. I visited Holland and Germany, I appreciated the measurably higher standards of living in those two countries, which their citizens attributed to membership of the European Community, and I thought that perhaps we could get a piece of that improvement here.
When we talk about the Common Market, what does "common" mean? We, of all hon. Members, ought to appreciate that it means equal. We insist on equality, do we not? We refer to it, with regard to Europe, as a level playing field—level in terms of trade, commerce and marketing—but if a level playing field is desirable for the captains of industry, why do we reject it for the players on the field? Why do we penalise the people who invest their whole lives in the industry of this country and create the wealth of the nation?
The social chapter is not the penal imposition of on-costs that the Government imply. The majority of respected companies in the United Kingdom already provide standards of pay, conditions and protection that clearly exceed European requirements, so what threat is there to companies such as ICI in my constituency?
We have just heard the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) pleading the case for ICI and talking about the threat that the social protocol would pose to that corporation. I did not see the same hon. Member in the vanguard protecting ICI from the threats of a noble Lord

585
in the other place when he was trying to buy up shares in that corporation. Now, for some reason, he seems to think that the social protocol would be a great threat to it. I know ICI as well as anybody, and its standards already exceed any requirement that the social protocol would impose.
The Prime Minister went further. He quoted Sir Denys Henderson as saying that Her Majesty's Government should ratify the treaty. I can accept that, but he then went on to report that Sir Denys said:
"Equally important, the Prime Minister should sustain the opt-out from the social chapter which he gained last year."
That, I am afraid, I cannot swallow. I cannot believe that Sir Denys could be so incredibly callow, and I will tell the House why.
ICI already operates throughout Europe in numerous countries. I cannot believe that Sir Denys would paint himself into a corner by seeking an environment in which he could deliver his British work force conditions substantially poorer than those that he was required to provide in other European states. It just does not make sense. I do not believe that Sir Denys would be so stupid as to provoke his British work force by making such a crass comment. But I shall find out, and I can promise the House that so will his work force, because I shall see that they do.
Since the Prime Minister is so keen to quote Sir Denys Henderson, he might like to note the same gentleman's assessment of the annual cost to his corporation of European transactions—not the amount of trade, not the value of sales, but the simple cost of changing money to make commercial transactions possible. Sir Denys estimated, 15 months ago, that the annual figure stood at £90 million: an annual added on cost of £90 million, without any kind of ensuing production promise. What price a single European currency under those conditions?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asserts that the added costs of the social protocol are minuscule. The Government disagree, and say that the added costs are prohibitive. If the Government are right, the European transnationals will have one level of on-costs in this country and another for operations elsewhere throughout Europe. That is not a saving; it is a recipe for industrial unrest for all European transnationals throughout the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister said that membership of the common agricultural policy would enable us to work for change from within, yet he rejects the same logic with regard to the social chapter. Does that mean that he will be content to stay outside discussions, or does he expect his European counterparts to allow him to contribute like some cuckoo in the nest? What price the Common Market then?
This week, two reports have highlighted the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the United Kingdom. The opt-out promotes a climate that will cause that gap to widen even further. The Government's unheeding, doctrinaire proposals have become a party fetish, a sightless totem clearly displaying their readiness—no, their eagerness—to put profit before people.
Their objective seems to be simply a penny-pinching, cost-cutting sweatshop economy. Their attitude is that British workers should be worked long and hard, sold
586
cheap, and employed in dangerous conditions. The people of this country will never forgive such disloyalty, nor should they ever forget it.
8.40 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: Hon. Members have stated their positions, so I should say immediately that I am not a Euro-sceptic or a Euro-fanatic. However, I was perhaps one of the earliest Euro-sceptics—I hereby make my confession—because, as long ago as 1961, at the Conservative party conference, I made an important speech against our entry into the Common Market. I was pulled up short by a most powerful speech in favour of our entry from none other than my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He was so persuasive that I was largely converted by the speech. It would be presumptuous of me to suggest that my speech had the reverse effect on him.
At that time, I argued the old-fashioned case for the Commonwealth. That was before Mr. Enoch Powell described the Commonwealth as having
"nothing in common and very little wealth".
I did not go as far as that, but I recognised that it had long since gone as an alternative to the European Community. I did not believe that we should retire into our shell. I was entirely opposed to the parish-pump, little-England nationalism that we heard in those days. Since my conversion on the road to Damascus—perhaps I should say on the road to the conference centre in Brighton—I have constantly supported our membership of the Community.
In that speech, I certainly opposed federalism, and I still do. I do not envisage a united states of Europe, nor does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as he has made clear repeatedly. However, we want to influence the development of Europe. In that powerful speech so long ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North said:
"If we go into Europe, it is not in the spirit of defeat, despair or disillusionment. It is in the determination to lead and to form and to shape the policies of a really strong and resourceful West."
Those are fine words, which I wholly endorse today, even if my right hon. Friend does not.
We shape such policies by working with allies in the European Community and playing in the team, not squawking on the touchline. Some say, thus far and no further. That is to treat the Community as a dead thing. It certainly is not a dead thing: it is a live and moving organism. It brings forward or moves back. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants it to move forward, but in the right direction. That is why he negotiated so skilfully and successfully at Maastricht, avoiding some of the nonsense that prevailed at that time.
One such nonsense is the issue that concerns us tonight —the social chapter. For years, I have been concerned about unemployment. When I was in the Government, unemployment in this country rose to 1 million, and all hell was let loose. We then took certain initiatives and it went down to 700,000—we are still cursed about that. We then lost office, and it went up again under the succeeding Labour Government, as it inevitably does.
Unemployment is one of the greatest curses on our country and it will continue. It is a problem in the whole of Europe and, indeed, in many other parts of the world. It will not be solved by the expansion of great companies,

587
because so many of them have adapted their affairs and made structural changes. The only way to solve unemployment is through the growth of small and medium-sized firms in Britain and Europe.
Small firms have always been a cause dear to my heart. It seems absolutely ridiculous and wholly contrary to the battle to reduce unemployment to put further burdens on them. We should be reducing the burdens on people who are expanding their firms, rather than putting more burdens on them.
Although Labour Members may argue that it is not as bad as all that, the plain fact is that people who run those firms and those who work to make them develop believe that we should not impose on them the burden of the social chapter. That is the basic economic reason why it is right —and the Prime Minister was absolutely right—to opt out of the social chapter.
Sir Russell Johnston: The small and medium-sized firms about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned are specifically excluded from the operation of the social chapter.
Sir Anthony Grant: The whole point is that small firms do not stay small; they grow and develop, and must take on more employees. The undesirability of the social chapter was well illustrated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who said that the social chapter provides for an expansion of treaty-based Community competence into areas of wage bargaining and social security that should rightly remain with member states or individual firms and citizens. I entirely agree. The right hon. Gentleman said that after the Prime Minister negotiated the treaty, so I cannot understand why he is now standing on his head.
The Confederation of Business Industry made its position clear when it said:
"Good employee involvement. for example, is the product of the individual company, the individual workplace—not of EC directives."
The decision to reject the social chapter is absolutely right, and should be supported tonight.
People are immensely bored with our activities in the House, and the rest of the world is completely mystified. People want us to get on with restoring our economy and our prosperity. They want us to deal with matters such as the reform of our criminal justice system. They know that this issue has been debated almost interminably. It has been voted on repeatedly and has always been passed by this House and another place.
People regard the court case that is taking place as absolutely preposterous, as I do. In my parliamentary life, I have always opposed most strongly Parliament interfering with the work of the courts. It is equally preposterous that the courts should interfere with the workings of Parliament, so I disregard that ludicrous performance.
My hon. Friends who are sceptics and rebels are my hon. Friends, and will remain so in every way. They have shown considerable courage, and I respect them greatly for that. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) is right and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) is wrong, I respect them for their views and the courage that they have shown.
However, they have been fighting past battles. In 1972, we had a great battle over entry into the Common Market.
588
We had a tremendous battle over the Single European Act, which was whipped through the House with great ferocity. Those are past battles.
We have had endless debates on the Maastricht treaty, but now the battles are over. Despite the courage of my hon. Friends, I would ask them not to fight this fight. They should not repeat Custer's last stand—we all know what happened to him. We do not want Cash's last stand to take place.
Before my hon. Friends decide to vote with the Labour party, they should reflect on my final observation. I suppose that I am one of the few hon. Members who is old enough to have just known action in the far east at the tail end of the war. The House will recall that everyone admired the immense courage of the kamikaze pilots. I do not recall, however, that, in any of their exploits, kamikaze pilots crashed themselves into their own ships.
8.50 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: Our role in this House is essentially to enact social provision. We may have different views about how that should be done and how wealth should be created and distributed, but the condition of the people is, or should be, our prime concern, because we represent the people. The policies we adopt should reflect that responsibility.
As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the problem with the social protocol is that its areas of responsibility are limited. We should not have any illusions about it being the means by which a great deal of social provision can be enacted. At best, that protocol is like a set of hooks, on which we can hang different forms of social provision. We must, however, obtain the agreed regulations and directives from the various insititutions of the European Community to hang upon those hooks. That prototocol does not instigate a programme of massive social reform and improvement. I wish that it did.
The Prime Minister has said that the social chapter is a tool for socialism. I rather favour socialism, and I am all for the means by which socialist ideas could be expounded and social provision made. The social chapter is not, however, an encyclical written by Karl Marx. We are not trying to get in on the act, because the social protocol is subject to many limitations.
As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, even if we opt out, there is sufficient in the Maastricht treaty to achieve the things that are laid down within the social protocol. That may not be done as easily and as readily as it would be if the social chapter was in place, but we know that the EC is an ever-changing institution. It will grow and develop because of the Maastricht treaty, and its competence will extend considerably to cover social provision.
The opt-out is likely to run up against other provisions of the treaty of Rome and the Maastricht treaty. Article 101 of the treaty of Rome may be used to contain the operation of the opt-out. If the opt-out did work, however, and if it had some fantastic impact—after all, we are talking about a significant piece of legislation—I do not believe that it would save jobs. I believe that it would have the opposite effect.
We must consider how multinationals will operate in the future. If we choose to opt out of the social chapter, those multinationals that must occasionally rationalise their activities will choose to do so in the United Kingdom.

589
It will be easier for them to do so because, in other European countries, the social provisions of the social chapter will hem in the way in which capital can act and work.
I do not believe that the Maastricht treaty represents the best means of extending social provision. The best way in which to do that is through the development of democracy—to follow the pattern established in the House. Various people have fought for democratic provisions. A statue in the Members Lobby commemorates Disraeli, who was involved in the introduction of the Reform Act 1867. Shortly after that, under a new Parliament, Forster's Education Act of 1870 initiated the general provision of education. Forster said that it was time to educate the masters, because the people had begun to have a say and a vote.
Another statue in the Members Lobby commemorates Lloyd George, who introduced the people's Budgets of 1909 and 1910, and pension provisions. A statue of Attlee is also out in the Lobby; the welfare state was established when he was Prime Minister of the 1945–51 Labour Government.
Once people have been given democratic provisions, they can use them to press for social provisions. We need arrangements in Europe to extend democratic provision. We need to abandon Maastricht and go back to the drawing board. We need to put in place a fully fledged, federal, democratic system, because that will enable legislation on social welfare and social provision to be introduced.
The Maastricht treaty will lead us towards bureaucratic centralism and will develop still further the institutions of the Community. Many of them operate secretly. The procedures of the Council of Ministers are still not open to scrutiny. The real parliament that exists within the Community is the Council of Ministers, but its meetings are held in secret. We are provided with no decent details of its voting record. Those details are beginning to be nudged out in this Parliament because I have pursued a campaign to obtain that information from parliamentary questions.
Within the Community, there is no means by which the European Parliament can learn about the votes within the Council of Ministers. The Edinburgh summit was supposed to represent a great advance in democratic accountability, but it has not meant that the key institution of the Community, the Council of Ministers, is now open to scrutiny. Subsidiarity has done nothing to break the centralising nature of the Maastricht treaty.
If the opt-out provisions work—I do not believe that they are significant enough to work—they would hit the island of Ireland hard. Northern Ireland would be subject to the opt-out, but Ireland would be subject to subsequent social provisions. How does that affect the supposed arrangements under Anglo-Irish provisions that say that there should be some common developments in that area? Northern Ireland has been used in a quite outrageous way in tonight's debate. Things that involve Northern Ireland have nothing to do with Maastricht.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) argued some of those points, but time is running out, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I feel strongly that,
590
whether talking of Select Committees, improved procedures or proper local government, Northern Ireland should be dealt with in its own right and there should be no attempt to use Northern Irish Members as Lobby fodder in the debate.
8.59 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Since we all begin with confessions, I am a Conservative who is not as anxious about the social protocol as some of my colleagues. I would certainly prefer to have the Maastricht treaty with the social chapter than to have no Maastricht treaty at all, but that is not the real point. In politics, important messages must often be reduced to simple terms if they are to get through at all. The message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues have sought to get through is that the European Community is already dangerously uncompetitive, but I shall return to that.
Through a long succession of debates and eventual success of negotiations, my right hon. Friend secured a complete reversal of the European Community's attitudes towards competition and its own competitiveness.
Last summer, I went to Bordeaux to meet a French politician and friend. When I got there, I discovered, to my amazement, that he was helping to organise the no vote in the French referendum. He was totally clear why he was doing so. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had achieved a much better deal for the United Kingdom than the French negotiators had achieved for France, my friend was determined to shipwreck the entire treaty to try to regain the competitive position that he felt France had lost.
In one sense, it hardly matters how the vote goes tonight, because the European Community has so absorbed the message that my right hon. Friend was trying to get across that, even if the social chapter were to be incorporated into United Kingdom legislation, the European Community would be wary about imposing most of the obligations under the social chapter, for fear of losing out to the rest of the world.
We are indeed uncompetitive. One of the most striking features of the debate is that little has been made of the extraordinary rise in the competitiveness of the Asian-Pacific rim, to name but one section of the world. The growth of the European Community and its share of visible exports is shrinking, and we are outpaced by China, Malaysia and other Asian-Pacific nations.
It is rich of the Labour party to berate the Government for having such enormous unemployment. All of us are distressed by that, but how does the Labour party explain the fact that, of all the countries in the European Community, ours has the second highest percentage of its working-age population in employment?
It is rich of the Labour party to berate us for low productivity and low investment. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is exactly because of the legacy of the socialist Government that such things as the dock labour scheme—which took many years finally to eradicate—totally discouraged the sort of investment which Labour now blames us for not having increased more quickly.
I was delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition make it so clear that he has totally reversed the Labour party's attitudes to alien employers. Indeed, I am struck by

591
the fact that the Japanese, whom he was so keen to praise, have made it clear that they are not prepared to accept the traditional attitudes to unions in the workplace.
I share the view held by many Opposition Members and by many of my hon. Friends that the United Kingdom's future does not lie in being a low-wage economy. Just as I believe that the United Kingdom should welcome the move away from national wage bargaining within this country, so I believe that it is barmy to try to determine centrally in the European Community the conditions of employment in all the countries of the Community.
The ratios of wage-related costs are as follows: in Germany, the figure is approximately 50, in the United Kingdom, the figure is 30, and in China, the figure is five. That is such a huge difference that United Kingdom employers will be bound to take much of their manufacturing work abroad. They will export British jobs to keep British firms in business.
We need high-tech, high-skill employment. That is why I welcome the fact that, in the past five years, there has been an increase in the British work force of over 2 million people who have an A-level or equivalent. I am delighted that the Department of Education has set a target that one third of 18-year-olds should be in higher education in the year 2000.
If we secure an economy of high-skill and high-tech employment, it is inconceivable that employers, whether large or small, will be able to compete with one another for rare skills by driving down the levels of working conditions. It is perfectly clear that, in such an economy, employers will find themselves, through force of competition, driving up the levels of conditions without any imposition from the European Community.
I accept that there will be fierce arguments within the European Community, for as far ahead as any of of us in the Chamber can see, on organisation, on policies and on the aspirations of the European Community. After all—none of its members is present in the Chamber at the moment—there are fierce arguments between the Scottish National party and the rest of the United Kingdom, despite almost 300 years of the Union of the Crowns.
The competition between different parts of the United Kingdom can hardly have been better illustrated than by the recent argument between Devonport and Rosyth. The European Community will never become the Community that we want it to be unless arguments between different parts of the Community are conducted in the spirit in which we have arguments within the United Kindom.
I remain convinced that the outcome of such debates will be infinitely preferable to the ways in which we resolved our disputes throughout this century. We were reminded earlier that, throughout this century, we have tried to resolve disputes between different parts of what is now the Europen Community by plunging the whole world into war. I strongly believe that the Government are right in their view, and I am happy to vote with them this evening.
9.8 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: This afternoon, the Prime Minister staked his future and the Government's future on the social opt-out. I suspect that he is staking his future on something that few have read. When we debated the social opt-out in Committee, I read out the social protocol. Conservative Members looked at me with
592
astonishment because none of them had understood what was in it. It is an extremely mild declaration of principles and it lays down a mechanism by which those principles can be achieved. The main advance of the measure is that it extends majority voting beyond health and safety to working conditions, the information and consultation of workers, equal opportunities and integration of persons excluded from the labour market. How many Conservative Members are against those things? I suspect that the answer is, not many. At least, they are not saying that to their constituents.
The measure also gives the EC competence in social security, in social protection and in other areas. But those areas are subject to veto and the issues of pay, the right of association, the right to strike, the right to impose lock-outs are specifically excluded from the social protocol. Article 2 says that directives must take into account the needs of small and medium-sized businesses. It says also that the measures must take account of the different forms of national employment practices and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the EC economy.
The document is mild, and the economic arguments against it are thin indeed. The arguments are purely political. The social opt-out exists because it was used to buy the support of the Thatcherites at the time of Maastricht. The Conservative Government were offered a weaker version and, because of the pressure from the former Secretary of State for Employment, did not take the opportunity. As a result of that decision, we are where we are today.
The Prime Minister says that there is not a majority for the social protocol. I believe that he is wrong—there is a majority. There are many Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who are in favour of the social protocol. There are other Conservative Members who would support the protocol, rather than see ratification blocked.
If the Labour amendment is carried, and if the amended motion is carried tonight, the Government should accept the decision. They cannot hide behind the outdated doctrine of the royal prerogative. Parliament's will should prevail. I support ratification and the social protocol, and I hope that tonight we will achieve it.
9.13 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I should begin by apologising to the House for the state of my voice, from which it will be obvious that I will not be shouting in the debate. In view of the treatment that was given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition during his speech, however, I will not be shouted down.
The debate has taken place exactly because of the success of the Labour party in securing the inclusion of section 7 in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. Throughout the long drawn-out process, our aim was always to secure the adoption of the social chapter for the benefit of the people of Britain and our economy generally. That was, and remains, our consistent view.
Two other issues have emerged subsequently—the attempt to use the courts to circumvent the decisions of the House of Commons, and the apparent unwillingness of the Government to accept decisions taken in the Chamber. Both represent fundamental challenges to democratic government and to the authority of the House of Commons.

593
It is important to deal with those matters in addition to the merits of the social chapter. First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) on his speech. He is my Member of Parliament, and I am delighted to have his support in the Chamber this evening. I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), together with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), on their speeches.
The House is having the debate because the Government, in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, accepted the Labour new clause 74—now section 7 of the Act. He said at that time:
"If new clause 74 is accepted, we shall abide by it."
There was no hint there that the Government would not accept the result of the debate which would ensue.
The Foreign Secretary also said:
"We have no difficulty in accepting the challenge with which the proposers of new clause 74 present us."
Indeed, he implied in that speech that the vote tonight would be the definitive decision of the House, as we intended it to be. He said:
"That will enable the House to vote on the merits of the social protocol itself."—[Official Report, 22 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 548–49.]
Throughout the proceedings, the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly asserted that the House of Commons was the place where decisions should legitimately be made indeed, had to be made. He said:
"As Parliament is sovereign it is clear that it could decide … we owe our constituents our judgment, and if we decline to exercise that judgment we are to some extent damaging the authority of Parliament."
In respect of the third stage of economic and monetary union, the Foreign Secretary said:
"the Government have specifically and successfully reserved the decision for the House of Commons … Governments are elected to govern and, in this case, to propose, just as parliaments in the United Kingdom are elected to decide and, indeed, to dispose … The decision for Britain lies where it belongs—in the hands of the British Parliament."—[Official Report, 21 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 453 and 458.]
So, throughout our proceedings, the right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear that he expected the House of Commons to take the decisions. That is the real reason why he is not here tonight and why he will not reply to the debate. What the Foreign Secretary said destroys the argument that the Prime Minister put to the House of Commons earlier today. The Prime Minister said that the debate was some sort of device and that the House had no business moving the amendment provided for in the Act of Parliament.
So the House is having the debate. However, no hint that the Government would not accept the result was given until it became apparent that the Government were in trouble. That is the reality. We agreed with what the Foreign Secretary had to say in his various speeches. Both Houses of Parliament agreed with him on the specific issue of the referendum. But now the Government are apparently saying, "We did not want a referendum. We did not want the people to decide, but now we shall not accept the decision of the House of Commons either."
594
In other words, the Government do not want anyone to decide but themselves. What duplicity. What hypocrisy. What a reneging on their fundamental position that parliamentary scrutiny and debate, and decisions in this Chamber, were the proper way and the only way to make decisions about the Maastricht treaty. Now that the Government have gone back on their word, I am not surprised that the Foreign Secretary is not with us tonight.
Like many others, on Tuesday I observed the Prime Minister wriggling under questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister was unwilling to give a straight answer to a straight question. Earlier we witnessed his dreadful evasions when he was questioned by the BBC's Jonathan Dimbleby. It was pass after pass: clearly, the Prime Minister could never be a candidate for "Mastermind". It is as well for him that his Government have not yet abolished the right to silence. The Prime Minister seems determined to die in the last ditch of prevarication on this matter.
But now an entirely novel concept of parliamentary democracy has emerged. It is, apparently, that the Government need not accept a decision of the House of Commons because of the nature and quality of the majority. We know that the European Community already has qualified majority voting, but this is a new and ridiculous argument. It seems that, if this was a boxing match, we would have to knock the Government out to get a draw.
The theory has great flexibility. Governments need not accept defeat because there were too many Scots in the Lobby, or too many Irish, or too many Welsh people, or too many women, or too many people who write with their left hand. The possibilities are endless.
Perhaps I ought to remind the Prime Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends that it was a Tory, Winston Churchill—and he was a Tory at the time—who said "One is enough." If we win the votes tonight, we shall expect the Government to accede to the wishes of the House of Commons.
The Government's argument on that issue—like their case against the social chapter—is bogus. Where were these people and arguments in November 1992? The Government did not care then who joined them in the Lobby, or how they got them there: all they cared about was a majority of the House of Commons.
Is this the same Prime Minister who said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in June 1992:
"common consent in this country is exercised through a parliamentary democracy and through the voices and words of Members of Parliament in this House."?—[Official Report, 3 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 832.]
Or is it, more accurately, really the kind of Government described by Disraeli, who said:
"A Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy"?
This is dangerous and unacceptable behaviour. If the Prime Minister and the Government ride roughshod over the decisions of the House of Commons, how can they call upon the people to accept other decisions of the House? The authority of this place would be seriously undermined. The reputation of the House is already too precarious for us to accept any further serious damage to it.
Is it not the inevitable outcome of the Government's position that other tangled webs of wealthy people, whether living in Britain or abroad, would seek to

595
circumvent or undermine in the courts the decisions of the House? Would they not always be able to produce sanctimonious dupes such as Lord Rees-Mogg to give a superficial but threadbare respectability to their plans?
We should not accept these developments, Madam Speaker. Your ruling yesterday, in response to the important questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, is of fundamental importance to the House, the nature of our democratic decision making and its future well-being. You deserve the thanks and support of everyone here—and, more important, of our constituents.
Rarely in my experience have a Government used such bogus arguments to avoid defeat on such a bogus case. The Tory case against the social chapter is a ragbag of half-truths, deceptions and downright fabrications. The dishonesty of the Government's case has been completely exposed in this as in earlier debates on the subject.
At Maastricht, the Prime Minister erected the social chapter as a threat to Britain and Europe. He was isolated —no one else agreed—and he planned the opt-out as a political insurance policy to ease the passage of the legislation. He failed. Even a superficial examination of the social chapter demonstrates that the claim that it is a charter for industrial unrest is completely untrue.
Article 2.6 of the chapter says:
"The provisions of this Article shall not apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs."
It applies to working conditions, information and consultation of workers on the basis of qualified majority voting. It applies also to social security, protection from dismissal, collective bargaining, employment conditions and job creation, but on the basis of unanimity.
The social chapter includes the novel provisions drafted by unions and employers, including the TUC and the CBI, enabling flexibility to be built in by collective agreements, replacing or complementing legislation. As we have all pointed out again and again, pay, the right to strike or impose lock-outs are explicitly excluded from legislation agreed under the social chapter.
As yet there is not even an action programme of legislation for the social chapter. The Commission is currently putting together a Green Paper on the future of social policy. All Governments are invited to make submissions. Perhaps the most interesting question will be how far the legislative route will be used and how much use will be made of the more flexible procedure, leaving those involved—unions and employers—to reach agreement on common standards.
What is clear is that the British Government will be excluded from those deliberations. British Commissioners, Members of the European Parliament, trade unionists and employers, as members of the economic and social committee, will have a formal role, but Britain's Government will be excluded from all the deliberations.
The only people who oppose the social chapter are the British Conservatives and the French neo-fascists: by their friends shall ye know them. Try as they might to dupe the British people or garner support for their reactionary views, the Government have totally failed. The European summit in Edinburgh at the end of the British presidency reaffirmed the commitment to the social chapter and urged Britain to join. That remains the unanimous view of It partners in spite of ministerial allegations, including those to the contrary from the Foreign Secretary.
596
Tories in Britain want Europe to be simply a big business club. We want a Europe with a continuously developing social dimension in the interests of greater efficiency and social cohesion. Our view is supported by industrialists such as Mr. Peter Wickens and others at Nissan who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Employment earlier this year. In March, he said:
"all I know is that any company that seeks to pay low wages ends up receiving low-quality, low-calibre employees. What we have got to do, in this country … is to be high-wage with a high-quality workforce, achieving high productivity and high quality products; that is the equation that we need, not low wage, low quality, low productivity. That is the route that is doomed to failure and disaster".
The House should also know that, when taking evidence in Japan, the Select Committee received exactly the same opinion from Aiwa, Fujitsu, Komatsu, Nissan, NSK and the Sony Corporation.
Another myth is that small businesses would be hit by the social chapter, yet article 2.2 of the social chapter specifically says:
"To this end, the Council may adopt, by means of directives, minimum requirements for gradual implementation, having regard to the conditions and technical rules obtaining in each of the Member States. Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings."
The social chapter specifically recognises
"the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community";
and Labour certainly wants to see a successful, efficient, productive Community.
The truth is that the Government do not want, as the Prime Minister claims, a nation at ease with itself. Unlike us, the Government do not want more equalities in British society. They want to return to an era where there was little social protection for millions of British workers, but they are not supported by Britain's best employers in that aim. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) in particular exploded the myth that British companies such as ICI would be badly affected if the social chapter was implemented.
The Government want a labour market that exploits young people, women and ethnic communities in particular—in short, a deregulated labour market. But Britain can never succeed on that basis. Hong Kong has labour costs only 25 per cent. of those in Britain, and the figure for Taiwan is 35 per cent. and for Korea 35 per cent. They will always undercut our labour costs. Our failure is on unit labour costs compared with the United States of America, Japan, Germany and France. Our failing is because of low skills, low investment and low productivity.
As ever, the Tory party emerges from these debates as what it always has been—the party of exploitation of ordinary people. It is the party that always wants to pay those at the top more, to to give those at the top more power and more security to make them perform better, but those at the bottom are denied support and protection: they must be paid less, trained less, protected less and made less secure to make them perform better.
So we ask the House to join us in the Lobby tonight to give British people the advantages, the support, of the social chapter and to ensure the British people the support of a House of Commons that protects them, upholds its decisions and requires Governments to act upon them.
9.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): This has been a debate without precedent. It is not a debate about the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is now an Act. It is a debate about the fundamental aspect of the Maastricht treaty, which was signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In doing so, he secured an opt out from a protocol relating to an agreement for social policy.
Several hon. Members have misunderstood the differences between the social protocol, the social agreement, the social chapter and the social charter. Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) spelt out exactly what we are talking about. This debate is about the effect that the protocol would have on jobs in the United Kingdom and indeed, were it to come into effect, the very damaging impact that it would have on business.
I took the side of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—if he is paying attention to the debate. When he is ready, I will, if I may, refer to his speech. I wanted to reply to a point that he made. The right hon. and learned Member depicted the social contract that he described between employers and unions, in the form of the protocol relating to social policy, as a matter of considerable importance. He was not in the House to listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who described the social protocol as a matter of comparatively little importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) also described the social protocol as something that did not really matter. I must therefore return the debate to the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the outset, when he set the agenda by describing the damaging effect that the social protocol would have upon business and jobs.
I do not have to do anything other than to refer the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) to the words of the president of the Confederation of British Industry. The hon. Member said a few moments ago that the social protocol was something of which no business man should be afraid. The president of the CBI said:
"Community interference in such social policies is far more likely to destroy jobs than enhance their quality".
There are about 18 million unemployed people in the Community. The president of the CBI went on to say on behalf of the CBI:
"A Common vote tonight, leading to the inclusion of the social chapter in the ratified Maastricht treaty would set back the cause of common sense and competitiveness in Europe by several years".
I refer my hon. Friends to the following comment:
"Members of Parliament should bear that in mind as they wrestle with their consciences today".
A statement issued a short time ago by the Institute of Directors says that the social chapter is
"a job destruction machine which will kill jobs by piling up the costs of employment,"
The director general of the IOD, Mr. Morgan, has said:
"The Maastricht Treaty has already become law. It would be folly now to add the Social Chapter to it."
I say that particularly in answer to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. Mr. Morgan continued:
"What the European Community needs now is not a charter for the destruction of jobs by pricing them out of the
598
market but forward looking policies which would enable firms to create more jobs and for people to establish new companies"
Mr. Carttiss: Can the Secretary of State explain, and understand, how Conservatives who have campaigned to deregulate British industry to enable us to compete in world markets, and who are totally opposed to increasing the Brussels bureaucracy's shackles on this country, can vote for the social protocol tonight?
Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) is absolutely right.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East earlier sought to quote UNICE in favour of the social protocol. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should reflect on the words of the president of UNICE, who said to Employment Ministers:
"Please, stop taking measures which unnecessarily destroy jobs."
One has only to look at what has been said in Japan recently. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) quoted the Toyota company, but the director of the Japanese equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Ota, has expressed his concern about the consequences of the social chapter on labour flexibility and wage costs. He made it clear that the Japanese would take that factor into account in future investment decisions.
Anyone who knows what is happening in Japan today knows that any Japanese firm considering firm considering further investment in the European Community will be watching our debate carefully to see if any message comes from the House of Commons to show that we shall have any truck with the social protocol.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister has referred to the social agreement and the social charter. My understanding is that the agreement puts into effect that charter's terms. If it is so damaging, why have Her Majesty's Government not published' it, as they have admitted in a written answer today?
Mr. Hunt: I will answer the hon. Gentleman. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will read the protocol carefully to see what is contains. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Yes, I will.
The preamble to the protocol states that 11 member states
"wish to continue along the path laid down in the 1989 Social Charter".
The protocol continues to authorise those 11 member states to have recourse to all the procedures and mechanisms of the treaty for the purpose of taking, among themselves, decisions relating to the social chapter referred to in the preamble. The protocol contains a clear statement that Acts adopted by the Council and any financial consequences shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is explicitly excluded.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East omitted to mention in his description of the agreement that article 2 applies to working conditions. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue, but the right hon. and learned Member forgot to mention those conditions. The sort of question raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is directly relevant when we consider the topics that could come under working conditions.

599
To my hon. Friends who do not fear the effect of that article, I must say that a document has come into my hands from the European Trades Union Congress. Let us consider what they mean by "working conditions"—precisely the sort of danger that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) and many others, have given as the reason why they cannot support the social protocol. The document is in French, but I shall endeavour to give a translation.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: A few minutes ago, my right hon. Friend referred to the position adopted by the Liberals and their attitude to the social chapter. Is he aware that while the leader of the Liberals, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), was extolling the merits of the social chapter this afternoon, a spokesman for Westland Helicopters, the largest employer in his Yeovil constituency, issued a statement saying:
"We support the CBI's opposition to the social chapter because we want to be competitive in Europe and ire the world."
That is the approach of any business, whether or not it supports the Conservatives.
Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Member for Yeovil was wrong about Toyota, as I have just explained. He is now wrong about Westland and about the effect of the social chapter on British business.
Mr. Richard Spring: My right hon. Friend knows that during the late 1980s employment grew rapidly and that 70 per cent. of that growth in employment was in the small business sector. Can my right hon. Friend speculate on the appalling damage that would be done to the revival of small businesses, which have been helped by the Budget proposals, by the imposition of the social charter?
Mr. Hunt: Yes. That is why the European TUC would like to introduce the following measures, which come under working conditions. First, it would like the inclusion of social clauses in public contracts. I dread to think what that would mean. Secondly, it wants equality of treatment for all third-country nationals dwelling legally in the Community. Thirdly it wants harmonisation of certain social protection objectives and policies. Next, it wants psychological and stress problems associated with working conditions and surroundings to be addressed. It also wants work performed at home and night work to come under working conditions.
Opposition Members should be made aware of the fact that under the protocol on social policy it is possible to bring forward a measure that would ban all overtime throughout the European Community, as well as all night work. That is what we are talking about when we say that we do not accept the social charter.
We know why Opposition Members want the social charter. Jacques Delors explained to the TUC that what it could not get through the front door of British politics it could get through the back door of Brussels. It was such an overwhelming speech that Mr. Willis made the memorable phrase, "Delors is my shepherd." We on this side are not part of the Delors flock.
Sir Jim Spice: My right hon. Friend knows that a quarter of all the people who work at Westland live in my constituency and that there are 50
600
sub-contractors for Westland in the south of England, including seven in Christchurch. Not one of the people who work at Westland—the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) does not want to listen to to this because he has no answer to it—and who know how competitive Westland must be against all other competitors would vote for the social chapter. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Yeovil has spoken to anyone in Westland about that.
Mr. Hunt: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point as we are giving examples of the type of damaging directives that could come into effect under the social protocol. On only Monday of this week Brussels presented us with a new proposal for a directive on parental leave. It would allow a man or woman to take up to nine and a half months' leave in a single year. In addition, the working time directive provides for one month's leave, which means a total of ten and a half months' leave out of 12. If the Opposition believe that any business or any economy could operate on that basis, they do not understand economics.
If my hon. Friends read article 4, they must be convinced of the dangers of what I have read out. Under article 4, it is perfectly possible for the European TUC to introduce a measure which is then an agreement concluded at Community level. That agreement would come into force without ever coming anywhere near the House of Commons. Is that the type of measure that we should be accepting? I warn the Opposition that we should not play dangerous games with the future economic life of this country.
To reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom have a very long-standing commitment to oppose Europe and what it stands for, I confirm that I respect what they have said in the past and what they have said today. The Prime Minister made it very clear earlier today that our present plans are exactly as he said, but for the avoidance of doubt I repeat them.
It is not the Government's present intention to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism or to move to a single currency. We negotiated an opt-out at Maastricht as the Government considered it to be in the interests of the United Kingdom to do so. It is the Government's policy that any matters involving foreign affairs or defence and security should remain subject to unanimity. I know that that will do much to reassure several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but the important issue that we now face—
Mr. John Sykes: My right hon. Friend knows that I speak as a northern manufacturer. Does he agree that many Opposition Members would not know a business if it jumped up and slapped them in the face? Does he also agree that the provisions of the social chapter would throw hundreds of thousands of people in this country out of work?
Mr. Hunt: I agree. What the House must understand is that there are very serious dangers in sending out the wrong message from the House.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever happens tonight, the Government will continue to fight the so-called social—in

601
reality job-destroying—legislation emanating from Brussels, just as he is fighting the working time directive through the European Court at the moment?
Mr. Hunt: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) that I have here the legal case that we propose to put before the European Court when fighting the working time directive. However, if we accept the Opposition's amendment tonight, I might as well tear up—[interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. [interruption.] Order. Mr. Banks! [Interruption.] Order. The House will settle down for the last few minutes.
Mr. Hunt: You are right, Madam Speaker, to stress that this debate is one of historical importance. When the House votes tonight we shall be sending a clear message about the sort of Europe, and the sort of United Kingdom, that we want to see. Whatever the motives—
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any Member of the House who votes for the social chapter tonight will have to explain to hundreds of his or her constituents why that vote is costing them their jobs? Such hon. Members will have that on their conscience for ever.
Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend.
Whatever the motives for Members' voting decisions tonight, the message must be clear. I want the House to vote for the sort of Europe where entrepreneurs and individuals can make their own choices—a Europe of diversity, enterprise, and personal freedom. If Conservative Members consider voting with the Opposition they are playing into the hands of those who would destroy the livelihoods of the people of this country.
Who would applaud most loudly if the proposed social chapter were ever to be forced upon us? It would be those who have lost their power over 14 years of Conservative government, and who yearn for the bad old days. And we know who they are. They are the militants who called strikes at the drop of a hat without thought of a ballot, the shop steward brigade who cared not a jot for the companies that they bargained over, and the armchair reformers who were prepared to tolerate anything but the idea of companies making profits. Those are the people who would smile if the Opposition amendment were passed.
The electorate has rejected the Labour party at four successive general elections. The front door to power has slammed firmly shut. No wonder they are slinking round to the back door. It used to be beer and sandwiches at No. 10. Now they want claret and croissants with the Commission.
If hon. Members wish to vote for the Opposition amendment, let them be clear what they will be voting for. They will be voting to overturn the reforms that we have fought so hard for over the past 14 years. They will be voting to put the trade unions back into the driving seat, not just here but in Europe. If, on the other hand, hon. Members share our vision of a Europe in which power moves increasingly away from Brussels bureaucrats to ordinary men and women—the very people whom we in the House represent—if they want a Europe of free trade, competition and open markets: if they want a Europe in
602
which free people create jobs through individual effort and enterprise, they will support the Government tonight, both in rejecting the Opposition amendment and in supporting the Government resolution.
I recognise that some Members of my own party have real and genuine doubts about many aspects of the European Community. They have been consistent in fighting for their views and they have fought conscientiously and determinedly against the Maastricht Bill. But that Bill is now an Act. My hon. Friends have been motivated by a determination to see the United Kingdom play the right role in Europe, but surely that is a role based on the principles that brought us together as members of the Conservative and Unionist party—principles that we have refreshed and renewed in the light of changes in our social and economic reality.
I, and everyone on the Conservative Benches, share a concern about the future of this country. There is only one place for the United Kingdom to be in the Europe of the next century and that is leading from the front in the Europe of freedom, enterprise and initiative. I urge the House to throw out the Opposition amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided:Ayes 317, Noes 317

Division No. 358]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cann, Jamie

Adams, Mrs Irene

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Ainger, Nick

Cash. William

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Allen, Graham

Clapham, Michael

Alton, David

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Armstrong, Hilary

Clelland, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ashton, Joe

Coffey, Ann

Austin-Walker, John

Cohen, Harry

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Connarty, Michael

Barnes, Harry

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Barron, Kevin

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Battle, John

Corbett, Robin

Bayley, Hugh

Corbyn, Jeremy

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Corston, Ms Jean

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Cousins, Jim

Bell, Stuart

Cox, Tom

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cryer, Bob

Bennett, Andrew F.

Cummings, John

Benton, Joe

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bermingham, Gerald

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Betts, Clive

Dafis, Cynog

Blair, Tony

Dalyell, Tam

Blunkett, David

Darling, Alistair

Boateng, Paul

Davidson, Ian

Body, Sir Richard

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Boyce, Jimmy

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Boyes, Roland

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bradley, Keith

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Denham, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Dewar, Donald

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Dixon, Don

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dobson, Frank

Burden, Richard

Donohoe, Brian H.

Butcher, John

Dowd, Jim

Byers, Stephen

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Caborn, Richard

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Callaghan, Jim

Eagle, Ms Angela

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Eastham, Ken

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Enright, Derek

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Etherington, Bill

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Canavan, Dennis

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

603

Fatchett, Derek

Lewis, Terry

Faulds, Andrew

Litherland, Robert

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Livingstone, Ken

Fisher, Mark

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Flynn, Paul

Llwyd, Elfyn

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Loyden, Eddie

Foster, Don (Bath)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Foulkes, George

McAllion, John

Fraser, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Fyfe, Maria

McCartney, Ian

Galbraith, Sam

Macdonald, Calum

Galloway, George

McFall, John

Gapes, Mike

McGrady, Eddie

Garrett, John

McKelvey, William

George, Bruce

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gerrard, Neil

McLeish, Henry

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Maclennan, Robert

Godman, Dr Norman A.

McMaster, Gordon

Godsiff, Roger

McNamara, Kevin

Golding, Mrs Llin

McWilliam, John

Gordon, Mildred

Madden, Max

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mahon, Alice

Gould, Bryan

Mallon, Seamus

Graham, Thomas

Mandelson, Peter

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Marek, Dr John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Marlow, Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Grocott, Bruce

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Gunnell, John

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Hain, Peter

Martlew, Eric

Hall, Mike

Maxton, John

Hanson, David

Meacher, Michael

Hardy, Peter

Meale, Alan

Harman, Ms Harriet

Michael, Alun

Harvey, Nick

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Henderson, Doug

Milburn, Alan

Hendron, Dr Joe

Miller, Andrew

Heppell, John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hinchliffe, David

Morgan, Rhodri

Hoey, Kate

Morley, Elliot

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Home Robertson, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hood, Jimmy

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Mowlam, Marjorie

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mudie, George

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Mullin, Chris

Hoyle, Doug

Murphy, Paul

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

O'Hara, Edward

Hume, John

Olner, William

Hutton, John

O'Neill, Martin

Ingram, Adam

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Parry, Robert

Jamieson, David

Patchett, Terry

Janner, Greville

Pendry, Tom

Jessel, Toby

Pickthall, Colin

Johnston, Sir Russell

Pike, Peter L.

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

Prescott, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Purchase, Ken

Jowell, Tessa

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Radice, Giles

Keen, Alan

Randall, Stuart

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Raynsford, Nick

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Redmond, Martin

Khabra, Piara S.

Reid, Dr John

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rendel, David

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Richardson, Jo

Kirkwood, Archy

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Leigh, Edward

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Leighton, Ron

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

604

Rogers, Allan

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Rooker, Jeff

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rooney, Terry

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Rowlands, Ted

Tipping, Paddy

Ruddock, Joan

Turner, Dennis

Salmond, Alex

Tyler, Paul

Sedgemore, Brian

Vaz, Keith

Sheerman, Barry

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wallace, James

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Walley, Joan

Short, Clare

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Simpson, Alan

Wareing, Robert N

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Watson, Mike

Skinner, Dennis

Welsh, Andrew

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Wigley, Dafydd

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Wilkinson, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Snape, Peter

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Soley, Clive

Wilson, Brian

Spearing, Nigel

Winnick, David

Spellar, John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Wise, Audrey

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Worthington, Tony

Steinberg, Gerry

Wray, Jimmy

Stevenson, George

Wright, Dr Tony

Stott, Roger

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Straw, Jack

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sweeney, Walter

Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Eric Illsley.

Tapsell, Sir Peter

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Butterfill, John

Aitken, Jonathan

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Alexander, Richard

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Carrington, Matthew

Amess, David

Carttiss, Michael

Ancram, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Arbuthnot, James

Churchill, Mr

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Clappison, James

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Ashby, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Aspinwall, Jack

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Atkins, Robert

Coe, Sebastian

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Colvin, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Congdon, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Conway, Derek

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Baldry, Tony

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Banks. Robert (Harrogate)

Cormack. Patrick

Bates, Michael

Couchman, James

Batiste, Spencer

Cran, James

Beggs, Roy

Critchley, Julian

Bellingham, Henry

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Bendall. Vivian

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Day, Stephen

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Booth, Hartley

Devlin, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Dicks, Terry

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Dorrell, Stephen

Bowden, Andrew

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bowis, John

Dover, Den

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Duncan, Alan

Brandreth, Gyles

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Brazier, Julian

Dunn, Bob

Bright, Graham

Durant, Sir Anthony

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Dykes, Hugh

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Eggar, Tim

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Elletson, Harold

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Burns, Simon

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Burt, Alistair

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Butler, Peter

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

605

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Evennett, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Faber, David

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fabricant, Michael

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lidington, David

Fishburn, Dudley

Lightbown, David

Forman, Nigel

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Lord, Michael

Forth, Eric

Luff, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

MacKay, Andrew

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Maclean, David

French, Douglas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fry, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gale, Roger

Madel, David

Gallic. Phil

Maginnis, Ken

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Maitland, Lady Olga

Garnier, Edward

Major, Rt Hon John

Gillan, Cheryl

Malone, Gerald

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mans, Keith

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marland, Paul

Gorst, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel

Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mates, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hague, William

Merchant, Piers

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Milligan, Stephen

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mills, Iain

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hanley, Jeremy

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hannam, Sir John

Moate, Sir Roger

Hargreaves, Andrew

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Harris, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Haselhurst, Alan

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hawkins, Nick

Moss, Malcolm

Hayes, Jerry

Needham, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Nelson, Anthony

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Neubert, Sir Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hendry, Charles

Nicholls, Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hicks, Robert

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Norris, Steve

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Horam, John

Ottaway, Richard

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Page, Richard

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Paice, James

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pawsey, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Pickles, Eric

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunter, Andrew

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Jack, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Rathbone, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Richards, Rod

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Riddick, Graham

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robathan, Andrew

Key, Robert

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Kilfedder, Sir James

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Knapman, Roger

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knox, Sir David

Sackville, Tom

606

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tracey, Richard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Tredinnick, David

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Trend, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Trimble, David

Shersby, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Sims, Roger

Twinn, Dr Ian

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Viggers, Peter

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Soames, Nicholas

Walden, George

Speed, Sir Keith

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Waller, Gary

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Ward, John

Spink, Dr Robert

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spring, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Sproat, Iain

Watts, John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wells, Bowen

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Whitney, Ray

Stephen, Michael

Whittingdale, John

Stern, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Stewart, Allan

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Streeter, Gary

Willetts, David

Sumberg, David

Wilshire, David

Sykes, John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wolfson, Mark

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Yeo, Tim

Temple-Morris, Peter

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Madam Speaker: The numbers being equal, it is my duty to cast my vote. It is not the function of the Chair to create a majority on a policy issue where no majority exists amongst the rest of the House. In accordance with precedent, I therefore cast my vote with the Noes.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 324.

Division No. 359]

[10.20 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Aitken, Jonathan

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Alexander, Richard

Bowden, Andrew

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Bowis, John

Amess, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Ancram, Michael

Brandreth, Gyles

Arbuthnot. James

Brazier, Julian

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bright, Graham

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Ashby, David

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Aspinwall, Jack

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Atkins, Robert

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Burns, Simon

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Burt, Alistair

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Butler, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Butterfill, John

Baldry, Tony

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Carrington, Matthew

Bates, Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Beggs, Roy

Churchill, Mr

Bellingham, Henry

Clappison, James

Bendall, Vivian

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Coe, Sebastian

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Colvin, Michael

Booth, Hartley

Congdon, David

Boswell, Tim

Conway, Derek

607

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Horam, John

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Couchman, James

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Critchley, Julian

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Day, Stephen

Hunter, Andrew

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Devlin, Tim

Jack, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dicks, Terry

Jenkin, Bernard

Dorrell, Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dover, Den

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Duncan, Alan

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, Bob

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Durant, Sir Anthony

Key, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Kilfedder, Sir James

Eggar, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom

Elletson, Harold

Kirkhope, Timothy

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knapman, Roger

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knox, Sir David

Evennett, David

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Faber, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fabricant, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fishburn, Dudley

Lidington, David

Forman, Nigel

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Forth, Eric

Lord, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Luff, Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

MacKay, Andrew

French, Douglas

Maclean, David

Fry, Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gale, Roger

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gallie, Phil

Madel, David

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Maginnis, Ken

Garnier, Edward

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gillan, Cheryl

Major, Rt Hon John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Malone, Gerald

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mans, Keith

Gorst, John

Marland, Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mates, Michael

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hague, William

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Merchant, Piers

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Milligan, Stephen

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mills, Iain

Hanley, Jeremy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hannam, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Moate, Sir Roger

Harris, David

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Haselhurst, Alan

Monro, Sir Hector

Hawkins, Nick

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hawksley, Warren

Moss, Malcolm

Hayes, Jerry

Needham, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Nelson, Anthony

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Neubert, Sir Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hendry, Charles

Nicholls, Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hicks, Robert

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Norris, Steve

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

608

Oppenheim, Phillip

Stephen, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Stern, Michael

Page, Richard

Stewart, Allan

Paice, James

Streeter, Gary

Patten, Rt Hon John

Sumberg, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Sykes, John

Pawsey, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Pickles, Eric

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thomason, Roy

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Powell, William (Corby)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rathbone, Tim

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Thurnham, Peter

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Richards, Rod

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Riddick, Graham

Tracey, Richard

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Tredinnick, David

Robathan, Andrew

Trend, Michael

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Trimble, David

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Trotter, Neville

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Viggers, Peter

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Walden, George

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Sackville, Tom

Waller, Gary

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Ward, John

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Waterson, Nigel

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Watts, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Wells, Bowen

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Shersby, Michael

Whitney, Ray

Sims, Roger

Whittingdale, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Widdecombe, Ann

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Willetts, David

Soames, Nicholas

Wilshire, David

Speed, Sir Keith

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wolfson, Mark

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Wood, Timothy

Spink, Dr Robert

Yeo, Tim

Spring, Richard

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Sproat, Iain

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Steen, Anthony

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Boateng, Paul

Adams, Mrs Irene

Body, Sir Richard

Ainger, Nick

Boyce, Jimmy

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Boyes, Roland

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Keith

Alton, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Armstrong, Hilary

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Budgen, Nicholas

Ashton, Joe

Burden, Richard

Austin-Walker, John

Butcher, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Byers, Stephen

Barnes, Harry

Caborn, Richard

Barron, Kevin

Callaghan, Jim

Battle, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bayley, Hugh

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Bell, Stuart

Canavan, Dennis

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cann, Jamie

Bennett, Andrew F.

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Benton, Joe

Cash, William

Bermingham, Gerald

Chisholm, Malcolm

Berry, Dr. Roger

Clapham, Michael

Betts, Clive

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Blair, Tony

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Blunkett, David

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

609

Clelland, David

Hendron, Dr Joe

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Heppell, John

Coffey, Ann

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cohen, Harry

Hinchliffe, David

Connarty, Michael

Hoey, Kate

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Home Robertson, John

Corbett, Robin

Hood, Jimmy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoon, Geoffrey

Corston, Ms Jean

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cousins, Jim

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cox, Tom

Hoyle, Doug

Cran, James

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cryer, Bob

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cummings, John

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hume, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Hutton, John

Dafis, Cynog

Ingram, Adam

Dalyell, Tam

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Darling, Alistair

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Davidson, Ian

Jamieson, David

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Janner, Greville

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jessel, Toby

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Denham, John

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Dewar, Donald

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dixon, Don

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Dobson, Frank

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Dowd, Jim

Jowell, Tessa

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Keen, Alan

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Eastham, Ken

Khabra, Piara S.

Enright, Derek

Kilfoyle, Peter

Etherington, Bill

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Kirkwood, Archy

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fatchett, Derek

Legg, Barry

Faulds, Andrew

Leigh, Edward

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Leighton, Ron

Fisher, Mark

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Flynn, Paul

Lewis, Terry

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Litherland, Robert

Foster, Don (Bath)

Livingstone, Ken

Foulkes, George

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Fraser, John

Llwyd, Elfyn

Fyfe, Maria

Loyden, Eddie

Galbraith, Sam

Lynne, Ms Liz

Galloway, George

McAllion, John

Gapes, Mike

McAvoy, Thomas

Gardiner, Sir George

McCartney, Ian

Garrett, John

Macdonald, Calum

George, Bruce

McFall, John

Gerrard, Neil

McGrady, Eddie

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

McKelvey, William

Gill, Christopher

Mackinlay, Andrew

Godman, Dr Norman A.

McLeish, Henry

Godsiff, Roger

Maclennan, Robert

Golding, Mrs Llin

McMaster, Gordon

Gordon, Mildred

McNamara, Kevin

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

McWilliam, John

Gould, Bryan

Madden, Max

Graham, Thomas

Mahon, Alice

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mallon, Seamus

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mandelson, Peter

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Marek, Dr John

Grocott, Bruce

Marlow, Tony

Gunnell, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hain, Peter

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Hall, Mike

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Hanson, David

Martlew, Eric

Hardy, Peter

Maxton, John

Harman, Ms Harriet

Meacher, Michael

Harvey, Nick

Meale, Alan

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Michael, Alun

Henderson, Doug

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

610

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Milburn, Alan

Short, Clare

Miller, Andrew

Simpson, Alan

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Skinner, Dennis

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Morley, Elliot

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Snape, Peter

Mowlam, Marjorie

Soley, Clive

Mudie, George

Spearing, Nigel

Mullin. Chris

Spellar, John

Murphy, Paul

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Hara, Edward

Stevenson, George

Olner, William

Stott, Roger

O'Neill, Martin

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Straw, Jack

Paisley, Rev Ian

Sweeney, Walter

Parry, Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Patchett, Terry

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pickthall, Colin

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Pike, Peter L.

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Pope, Greg

Tipping, Paddy

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Turner, Dennis

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tyler, Paul

Prescott, John

Vaz, Keith

Primarolo, Dawn

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Purchase, Ken

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wallace, James

Radice, Giles

Walley, Joan

Randall, Stuart

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Raynsford, Nick

Wareing. Robert N

Redmond, Martin

Watson, Mike

Reid, Dr John

Welsh, Andrew

Rendel, David

Wicks, Malcolm

Richardson, Jo

Wigley, Dafydd

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Wilkinson, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Wilson, Brian

Rogers, Allan

Winnick, David

Rooker, Jeff

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Rooney, Terry

Wise, Audrey

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Worthington, Tony

Rowlands, Ted

Wray, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Wright, Dr Tony

Salmond, Alex

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Tellers for the Noes:

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Eric Illsley.

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Question accordingly negatived.
The Prime Minister rose—
Madam Speaker: I call the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. Seats are available in the Chamber; I ask hon. Members who are standing at the Bar to sit down.
The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House has not come to a resolution, as required by section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act, and so the Act cannot come into force. We clearly cannot leave the matter there. Tonight's debate has shown that there is no majority in the House for the United Kingdom to join the social chapter; however, as we know, a majority of the House is in favour of ratifying the Maastricht treaty. I therefore invite the Members of the Opposition parties who say that they support ratification, and that they respect the opinion of the House, to reconsider their position.

611
We must resolve this issue; it cannot be allowed to fester any longer. I therefore give notice that the Government will invite the House to come to a resolution tomorrow in support of the Government's policy on the social chapter by tabling a motion of confidence in the following terms:
"That the House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy."
Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister may seek to maintain that there was no vote in the House for the social chapter; but there was no vote against it. The plain fact is that the House tied. I note that the Prime Minister has been driven to use the confidence factor because he cannot win the vote on any other terms. But, when he tables his resolution, we shall table an amendment that will give a tied House of Commons the opportunity to vote positively for the social chapter tomorrow.
Sir Russell Johnston: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. One has to say that, in this tied vote, the Government have been willing to strengthen sectarian politics in Northern Ireland to deny workers' rights in the United Kingdom as a whole. The fact is that, in a free vote, there is a majority for the social chapter in the House, and we on this Bench shall continue to vote in that direction.
Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In your statement yesterday you quoted article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I ask you to consider overnight article 1 of the Bill of Rights, which says:
"That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall."
Under section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the House rejected the Government's policy—rejected it in accordance with a statute which the Government promoted and on which the House voted.
There is no provision for reversal under section 7. If the Prime Minister, using a vote of confidence, which is not catered for in section 7, were to seek to ratify the treaty by regal authority—the royal prerogative of ratification—would it be illegal? It is a matter that you, Madam Speaker, will wish to consider overnight, but I believe that the issue is whether the Government intend to defy Parliament or accept the clear vote of a rejection of their view.

PETITION

  Unitary Authority Status (Meirionnydd)
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Elfin Llwyd: With your leave, Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition to the House in support of unitary authority status for the old country of Meirionnydd, part of which I represent.
  The petition bears 12,242 signatures and I support it strongly because the old county has been a unit of local authority since 1284. It was recently described by the district auditor as well run and proactive in nature. It reads:
  "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House oppose the said proposals by Her Majesty's Government and provide that the historic district of Meirionnydd and adjoining areas shall be the area of the new unitary authority of Meirionnydd."
  To lie upon the Table.

  HIV (Government Policy)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10.46 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I could not have picked a better night for the Adjournment debate. I raise the issue of AIDS and HIV in an attempt to discover the Government's current attitude towards the Day report and projections about the development of the disease in future.
  It is a pity that leaks and speculations about the contents of the Day report took off well before its publication. Many who, prior to publication, claimed that the matter was being exaggerated, have not, to my knowledge, amended their comments in the light of the report. Andrew Neil frequently claims that there is little or no danger. He is quoted as saying,
  "You have more chance of being run over by a car on the way to see your girl friend than you have of contracting AIDS from them."
  The use of the word "them" is interesting in that context, as is the absence of reference to protection and the reference to sex with them. The analogy is also interesting. We all try to make people, particularly the young, responsible in their attitude to traffic and I ask no more than that we extend the same principle to sexual activities.
  I shall quote an extract from the paper by Professor Anderson and Robert May, in which they state:
  "The degree to which infection will be constrained within a small core of highly sexually active people depends on who mixes with whom: the network of sexual contacts among those who are very active sexually and those who are not. To define such a network, one must ask questions not only about numbers of sexual partners but also about"
  other matters in relation to their habits.
  We must have a detailed answer from the Government on the Day report and matters related to it. In that connection, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on his ingenuity in raising the subject of education on HIV and AIDS during the debate on the guillotine motion on the Education Bill on Monday. He made a forthright and sensible speech. As I agreed with it and as time is limited, I shall not repeat his case, except to say that the Lords amendment was never discussed here. The country has never heard the arguments for and against keeping the teaching of AIDS in the core curriculum.
  We are depriving our children of the right to be educated about such matters. In the light of the knowledge that we possess, it is indefensible for us to make it easier for our children to die of ignorance, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said. We all like to think that our children are innocent—they are until a certain age, but times have changed. We now know from the research that has been carried out that 35 per cent. of under-16s and 50 per cent. of under-18s have full sexual intercourse and one third use no protection—so we know that we have a problem. Some 20 per cent. of HIV infections in this country occur in the 15 to 25-year-old age group.
  The Government have said—I support them in this—that they are anxious to reduce teenage pregnancies and other sexual problems and some sexual-related diseases. The Government should be seen to be effective. According to the reply given by the Minister on 12 July to my hon. friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury
  614
  (Mr. Smith), there are 500 reports of children in the United Kingdom born to women who are known to be infected with AIDS. Large numbers of those women were very young and many of them had had unprotected sex. Some 152 of those children are known to be uninfected, but the status of the rest is not yet known.
  The worrying factor is that the results of unlinked, anonymous HIV surveys showed that there have been many pregnant women whose HIV infection was not known to the staff in the hospital. Therefore, there are an unknown number of children born to HIV infected women and their plight is yet to be known. Anyone who has looked at how AIDS has swept across certain continents and the effect that it is having on families and children, born only to die a few years later, knows that, although we do not have that problem here, we have no cause for complacency.
  The Day report suggests that the number of AIDS cases will soon level off among homosexual men and that HIV infection is declining among drug users. The report, however, also predicts an increase in new cases of AIDS among heterosexuals and suggests that that increase will continue over the next few years.
  I was also alarmed to read that, of men tested in Brighton—I stress, of those who came forward to be tested, because they were concerned—one in four homosexual men were infected and one in seven heterosexual men were infected. That figure may be due to the peculiar circumstances of that area, but we have to bear it in mind.
  It is important also to bear in mind when we look at statistics that we cannot categorise people as belonging to one particular group: homosexual, heterosexual, drug takers, or whatever. In many instances, behaviour in one group can be found in another.
  The Government's attitude is somewhat puzzling. That is why I applied for this Adjournment debate. The Government say that their policies have worked and that predictions about the spread of the AIDS virus have not been borne out by the facts. I am glad to hear it, as I am sure everybody is. If the policies that the Government have adopted are right, why on earth are they reducing the facilities that have contributed to keeping AIDS and HIV under control? It does not make sense.
  The Government say that the figures in the Day report vindicate the policies that they have put into practice to fight the disease. Why, then, change those policies? When we look at the spread of any disease, we know that, if people grow careless about inoculation, the educative process has to start all over again.
  Why are grants to voluntary organisations, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, being cut? Why are the Government putting an end to the ring fencing of AIDS funds? Why is the Department of Health AIDS unit being integrated with the communicable diseases branch? Why is the Health Education Authority being reorganised? What are the implications of all this for education campaigns and the independence of such an authority? Ring fencing provided additional resources, for the significant care implications of AIDS and HIV could not be met by the national health service budget.
  The George House Trust in Manchester has done excellent work in dealing with victims of AIDS and the HIV virus. Its work has been acknowledged by many

  615
  people. The trust has entered into correspondence with the Department of Health about the cut in funds. It makes very worrying reading.
  When he asked for extra funding, John Nicholson, who runs the George House Trust, said:
  "Nationally, the result of the F64 allocation is that direct Department funding continues to be restricted to the London national voluntary organisations. Regionally, the northwestern regional health authority continues to be unclear as to how it will organise funding for regional-wide voluntary organisations after the 1st April 1994 and continues not to fund them directly. Our core grant from the north-west regional health authority, through North Manchester health authority, ended on the 31st of March this year. Locally, all local authorities in the north-west, except Manchester, are in difficulty. Many have bid for contributions on our behalf, but"—
  he says, and I know this to be true—
  "I understand they have now received a 20 per cent. cash cut for 1993–94, while Manchester itself has a cash standstill."
  John Nicholson said that they seem unlikely to be able to implement the guidelines which insisted on the same level of funding being provided next year to the voluntary sector. I am sure that that does not apply only to the George House Trust in my constituency. It has implications for all voluntary organisations and for funding which had been ring-fenced.
  Those who deal with AIDS and HIV were at least able to believe that funds were specially allocated to them and they did not have to scrape around for money. Unfortunately, as is the case with other units—for example, those dealing with alcohol abuse—they now find that ring fencing no longer exists and that they have to compete with other demands.
  I am not an alarmist; I want more preventive work to be undertaken. I believe that we can deal with AIDS and HIV if we are prepared to put ourselves out, make the resources available and acknowledge what has to be done.
  It is sad that the necessary time is not allocated to debate such matters in the House. A report as important as the Day report should be discussed in detail. I want to allow the Minister plenty of time to comment, but I make a few observations on the report's summary. The working party concluded:
  "after adjustment for under-reporting, there will be between 2,015 and 2,720 new AIDS cases in England and Wales in 1995, and between 1,945 and 3,215 new AIDS cases in 1997."
  It also gives the 1995 and 1997 planning projections for new AIDS cases among the main exposure categories. It continues:
  "It is estimated that there were approximately 23,400 HIV infected individuals in England and Wales at the end of 1996 … The expected levelling off in the overall incidence of AIDS in 1996 and 1997 masks sharp underlying differences in the trends between the exposure categories. Whereas AIDS incidence in homosexual males may peak in 1993 and 1994, the incidence in those exposed heterosexually is expected to increase steadily."
  I stress strongly that it is wrong for the Government, intentionally or otherwise, to lull people into a false sense of security. The ignorance about AIDS among the young is appalling. The young always believe that they are immune from the dangers about which their parents warn them. Whether we like it or not, young people are having sex much earlier than we did and they are not as careful as many of us believe that they should be.
  In "The Health of the Nation", the Government rightly said that they wanted to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies, but the number is indicative of the fact that
  616
  many young people do not take precautions when having sex. In some cases, their activities can result in sex, but, sadly, they can also result in HIV and AIDS.
  When considering the statistics, it is important that we do not make moral judgments. Society may not be as we would wish it to be and children and young people may not behave as we behaved or as we would wish them to behave. There are various role models which we may wish young people did not have. Nevertheless, young people have sex earlier and take risks in doing so. That is why I was so angry on Monday when, because of the guillotine, the Government accepted a Lords amendment without debate in this House.
  Some time ago I wrote to the Minister and I was pleased that he expressed his belief that sex education and related matters should be dealt with in schools. However, we have undermined much of the work that could have been done; we must reach young people.
  I have gone into the matter as far as I can and I could talk for an hour if I dealt with all the material that I have. I do not suggest an epidemic—I am not an alarmist—but the figures that I have seen suggest to me that unless precautions are taken we shall land in great difficulty.
  Before I finish, I shall raise one other matter. The Government have talked about reducing teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and the instance of drug misuse over the next few years. We all hope that that happens, but we cannot allow ourselves, or other people, to get the impression that because the incidence has not been as bad as some people predicted, we can now relax and treat AIDS and HIV in the same way as we treat other diseases.
  The age at which people are dying of AIDS shows that they are getting the disease very young. That is one of the most worrying aspects, whether those involved are boys or girls. As I have already said, we know that youth does not always listen and does not always want to be counselled. If one talks to young people, one finds that their ignorance about the transmission of AIDS is frightening, because they have not had the opportunity to be educated about it I understand how many parents feel; they want the right to prevent their children from being, as it were, contaminated with that knowledge; they want the right to remove their children from the education. But the children, too, have rights to know the world in which they are growing up —a world that many of us, because of our age, will never enter.
  The Government must take the subject seriously and reconsider ring fencing and other factors. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, and one or two other hon. Members here, I am a member of the all-party group on AIDS. We receive much information and guidance and we are not scaremongering, but we are realists and we are anxious to ensure that the Government take the matter seriously. If the Government give the impression that things are getting better, the message will not get through to many people, especially the young, who still think that those of us who are trying to warn them are scaremongering. They do not think that anything will happen to them. Sadly, as we know, AIDS does happen to a minority of them.
  11.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I thank the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) for introducing a debate on this alarming and sad subject.
  First, I shall look back a few years to remind her that, when we were first confronted with HIV in this country, in the early 1980s, we acted much more speedily than did some other countries. We were in the forefront of developments such as needle exchange, which have shown enormous benefits in reducing the spread of the disease among drug users, and we can be justifiably proud of that.
  We embarked on what was then considered an advanced and controversial education campaign. Despite considerable criticism, to which the hon. Lady referred, we targeted the young heterosexual population, because we knew of the dangers of the spread of the disease. It may not be so apparent here as in some parts of the world, but it is here, and it is a growing danger.
  We embarked on a considerable funding programme. The hon. Lady referred to money, so may I remind the House of the mainstream funds that have gone to health authorities for the treatment of HIV and AIDS in the past few years. The sum has grown from £25 million in 1987 —the first recorded figure that I have—to £181 million last year and £214 million in the current year. Those are very considerable funds when we consider that they form part of a hospital and community budget of £20,000 million. In terms of the public education campaign, to date we have spent £85 million. I doubt whether the Government have run a bigger public health campaign than that.
  I am aware of the hon. Lady's concerns about more than one of the voluntary organisations which have been told that they will have their grants cut progressively in the years to come.
  Section 64 funding in the current year is £1·92 million. That must be taken in the context of a section 64 budget of £17 million, so that funding represents about 10 per cent. of the entire voluntary organisation budget which is devoted to AIDs-related charities. The hon. Lady knows that we have to turn down requests for funding from hundreds of organisations concerned with mental health, cancer and many other areas. Therefore, the funding for AIDs-related organisations is very considerable. Those organisations include AI Ds and Housing Project, ACET, Barnardo's, Black HIV-AIDs Network, Blackliners, Body Positive and Landmark.
  I appreciate that we have said that some of the largest single grants will be cut. However, we are talking about levels of central Government funding for those organisations which some would say were out of proportion to other Government funding for voluntary organisations. However, that was a response in the early days to a new threat when it was very difficult to fund those organisations.
  Some of those organisations are now quite mature. As I have said, there are many demands for funding for voluntary organisations and we have reached the conclusion that we have. However, that does not represent a diminution of our commitment to AIDs, and I hope that the figures that I have given will demonstrate that.
  The hon. Lady referred to the George House Trust. If I may, I will write to her about that as the matter is of considerable concern to her and my area of the country.
  618
  She also mentioned the figures for the Day report. Perhaps I can refer to some of our latest information on the basis of which we work.
  It is reassuring that the projected figures for new AIDs cases have been borne out by events. Without being complacent, we have reason to have some confidence in the methods that we have used over the past few years to prevent the further spread of that dreadful disease.
  The figures that we are working on are the fruit of 18 months' work by the expert group which has benefited from increasing amounts of information from surveillance networks. In particular, we were able to use data from the Government's programme of anonymous HIV surveys. The estimate on which we are now working is that there were between 19,628 and 28,400 HIV-infected adults in England and Wales at the end of 1991.
  It has been suggested, and the hon. Lady referred to this, that that is good news and it has been used as an argument for reducing the commitment to AIDS. That is not necessarily our view. The figures are lower than might have been suggested at an earlier stage and we are clearly glad that we have evidence of the effects of behaviour change among homosexual men and drug misusers.
  However, it must be emphasised that those figures still indicate a large reservoir of people who are not only likely to develop AIDS themselves, but may infect others. They also predict the number of people who are likely to require care. It must be remembered that nearly all of them are likely to be already infected with HIV. We were correct regarding the heterosexual spread of HIV as a real and growing threat and we proceed on that basis, even though, at present, the majority of cases of HIV infection are still transmitted through homosexual intercourse.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the sexual behaviour of young people. I agree with her. We must accept that there is increased sexual activity at a much younger age than in recent years. We might regret that, but we must accept that it exists and that it poses a threat to health and to the spread of HIV.
  We are committed to the provision of family planning advice and contraceptive services to what some people regard as very young teenagers whom we know to be sexually active. She referred to "The Health of the Nation". It contains one of the key targets for the reduction of under-16 pregnancies. That means some fairly controversial forays into family planning advice and contraceptive services for under-16s, despite all the taboos and legal uncertainties that surround it.
  It is difficult, but we support and pay great tribute to pioneering organisations such as the Brooke advisory centre, whose priority it is to reach young people. I have opened innovative initiatives such as the youth advice shop in Accrington, of which the hon. Lady might be aware. It is run by Lancashire county council and others and it contains a family planning component. We must recognise that, in order to reach young people and try to reduce the dangers to them, we need to be rather subtle and make help accessible.
  I am aware also of the controversy surrounding changes to the Education Bill, but I remind the hon. Lady and all those who predict dire consequences that one of the main changes is that it makes sex education compulsory for all schools. It is not open to a board of governors to say, "We are not going to offer sex education." That is very explicit for the first time. The hon. Lady regrets that parents will have the option to withdraw children. I predict

  619
  that very small numbers will be involved. We look to the Department for Education to give clear guidance on what is expected in terms of sex education programmes. There is no doubt that, if we do not somehow reach children —it is a truism that parents in this country are not particularly good at it—they will not get that basic education. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that matter.
  I emphasise the theme of my remarks. There is no change of attitude. We recognise that the heterosexual
  620
  population, as well as the traditional groups, are vulnerable to HIV. We will continue to target them. We will continue to spend large sums on them. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising this important topic.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Council (Restructuring)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his statement of 9 July,Official Report, column 599 (1) at what date and at what time he informed the chairmen-designate of the proposed United Kingdom Sports Commission and Sports Council for England of his decision to discontinue work to put these bodies in place of the current Sports Council for Great Britain from 1 October;

  (2) at what date he had consulted the chairmen-designate of the proposed United Kingdom Sports Commission and the Sports Council for England with regard to his decision to proceed no further with work to put those bodies in place of the current Sports Council of Great Britain from 1 October.

  Mr. Brooke
  I received in November 1992 the Sports Council's proposals for the detailed split of functions and resources between the bodies which the Government had proposed, in their December 1991 sports policy statement "Sport and Active Recreation", should succeed the present Sports Council of Great Britain.

  My officials subsequently had extensive discussions with the Sports Council, including the chairmen-designate of the proposed successor bodies, on its proposals for the allocation of resources, notably to staffing. I also consulted my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the Sports Council's proposals.

  As a result of these discussions, I informed the chairmen-designate of the proposed successor bodies on 8 July that the Government no longer intended to proceed with their original plans.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the annual report of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency will be published.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The second annual report of the Recruitment and Assessment Servcies Agency was published yesterday and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
  288

HEALTH

  Medical Services, Inner London
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the general medical services budgets for each inner London family health services authority for each year since 1988–89 and the amount in real terms from each budget spent on fund-holding.

  Mr. Sackville
  General medical services (GMS) expenditure for each year from 1988–89 to 1991–92 is shown in table A. Figures for 1992–93 will be available later this year. Expenditure on fund-holding within GMS expenditure is not separately identifiable. However, the total cost of general practitioner fund-holding expenditure for each inner London family health services authority (FHSA) is shown in table B.

  Table A

  Expenditure on General Medical Services

  £000s

  FHSA

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Brent and Harrow

  16,382

  18,438

  23,260

  28,990

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  11,639

  13,492

  18,281

  19,291

  Camden and Islington

  12,099

  13,674

  17,124

  19,226

  City and East London

  18,144

  21,019

  30,174

  33,901

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  22,482

  25,024

  31,906

  37,783

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  17,420

  19,639

  22,707

  26,916

  Source:

  Annual accounts of FHSAs and the predecessor bodies.

  Table B

  GP Fund holders' expenditure for 1991–92

  FHSA

  Total expenditure £s

  Brent and Harrow

  nil

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  789,923

  Camden and Islington

  1,406,503

  City and East London

  1,842,910

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  4,094,110

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  4,585,639

  Source: Annual accounts of FHSAs.

  Note:

  1. The above totals include expenditure for practice staff, hospital purchases, drugs and appliances.

  2. GP fund-holding expenditure is available only for 1991–92. Details for 1992–93 will be available later this year.

  GP Fund Holders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the benefits to patients available from GP fund-holding practices relative to non-fund-holding practices.

  Mr. Sackville
  Fund-holding is one of the major successes of the national health service reforms and the improvements secured by fund-holders are extending widely to benefit patients in non-fund-holding practices. We are delighted at how both general practitioner fund-holders and district health authorities are seizing the opportunities of the new NHS to secure more appropriate, high-quality care for patients.
  289
  Among the benefits are shorter waiting times, better liaison between hospitals and community services when patients are discharged and more services provided in GP surgeries.

  Minimal Invasive Therapy
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to encourage the development of minimal invasive therapy.

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall shortly be announcing decisions on expanded training facilities for minimally invasive therapy, jointly funded by the Government and the Wolfson Foundation.

  British Orthopaedic Association
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next expects to meet the British Orthopaedic Association; and what subjects she intends to discuss.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are currently no plans for Ministers to meet the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) in the near future. However, the chief medical officer will be meeting the BOA's president on 17 August to discuss hip prostheses and the quality of care.

  Clothier Inquiry
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, following the publication of the White Paper on open government, if she will consider making the Clothier inquiry an open inquiry under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The public interest will be better served by an investigative type of inquiry rather than an adversarial one, in other words, by the type of inquiry that Sir Cecil Clothier is now leading.

  NHS (Product Purchasing)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the use of inducements offered by manufacturers of drugs and hip and knee prostheses to NHS personnel to persuade them to buy their products.

  Mr. Sackville
  Unequivocal guidance issued to the health service in January—HSG(93)5—states that under

  Year ending:

  31 July 1991

  31 July 1992

  31 July 1993

  Students obtaining their first registerable qualification from medical schools in the United Kingdom

  3,573

  3,644

  n/a

  Year ending:

  30 June 1991

  30 June 1992

  30 June 1993

  Doctors joining general practice in the United Kingdom

  1,609

  1,510

  n/a

  The doctors covered by the two tables will not be the same, as a period of training follows first registerable qualification before admission to general practice. The second table will include doctors who qualified outside the United Kingdom.

  Fluoride Prescriptions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of fluoride prescriptions for each quarter of 1992 and the first three months of 1993.
  290
  no circumstances must purchasing decisions be influenced by inducements from suppliers or potential contractors. National health service employers and employees have a responsibility to ensure that at all times the interest of patients is paramount and that public funds are disbursed impartially and honestly.

  GP Practices
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 532, how many (a) non-fund-holding practices and (b) fund-holding practices she has visited in the last year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 14 July at column 532.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average earnings of(a) all general practitioners and (b) fund-holding general practitioners by the smallest geographical base for the most recent available period.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about the geographical distribution of general practitioners' earnings or the earnings of general practitioner fund holders compared with non-fund holders is not available. The intended average net remuneration for an unrestricted principal providing general medical services in Great Britain in 1993–94 is £40,610. Payments for achieving higher levels of coverage for childhood immunisations and cervical screening and for administering the Hib meningitis vaccine are made in addition. The most recent information suggests these added an estimated £2,750 to the average general practitioner's remuneration in 1992–93.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students gained their final qualifications to practise medicine in the United Kingdom in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and how many of them entered general practice in the United Kingdom from each of those years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for England is shown in the table.
  291

  Period

  Net ingredient cost (£'000s)

  1st Quarter 1992

  10·2

  2nd Quarter 1992

  10·3

  3rd Quarter 1992

  8·7

  4th Quarter 1992

  8·9

  1st Quarter 1993

  66·9

  Note: The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of the drug before any discount and not including dispensing costs or fees. The data cover prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors and dentists. Dental practitioners providing general dental services in the national health service have, from 1 January 1993, been able to prescribe fluoride supplements under the national health service.

  Needy Children
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to secure that the children of homeless families are classified as children in need and gain access to services provided under the Children Act.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no plans to do so. The definition of "in need" in the Children Act 1989 is in terms of a child's health and development, including disablement. It is for local authorities to seek out the extent of children in need in their areas and to publish services available to help them and their families.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring has been undertaken by her Department into the definition of in need according to part III of the Children Act 1989 used in practice by local authorities; and what plans she has to introduce new guidelines.

  Mr. Bowis
  The first report to Parliament of the working of the Children Act 1989—Cm 2144—was published in January 1993. We are keeping the position under review, but have no reason to believe that the guidance on this subject in "The Children Act 1989: Guidance and Regulations Volume 2 Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children", a copy of which is available in the Library, is in need of amendment.

  Children's Residential Care
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will announce the final terms of reference and the membership of the support force for children's residential care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Further to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on 24 June at columns 249–50, the terms of reference are as follows:

  1. (a) to offer advice to individual authorities on the interrelated issues of quality of care and management in children's residential care, with particular reference to the appointment and selection, personnel management, support, development and internal training of children's residential care staff.

  (b) to offer advice to individual authorities and, where appropriate, groups of authorities on suitable mechanisms for snatching needs and supply in their localities or regions, taking account of the
  292
  potential contributions of voluntary, private and public sectors; and on related commissioning and contractual issues. A particular focus of the work will be to assist authorities and the voluntary and private sectors to improve occupancy rates and hence reduce unit costs in children's residential homes where this is appropriate.

  (c) to prepare material for a code of employment practice, for discussion with employer and other interests.

  2. The support force for children's residential care will work under Department of Health auspices, and from time to time as requested, report on its programme and progress. It will work with social services and, as appropriate, other agencies by invitation in a consulting and facilitating role; by implication it will draw attention to and disseminate examples of good practice. The social services inspectorate's advice will be available to it. It will work within the framework of the Children Act 1989 and regulations and guidance issued following that and other relevant legislation; the Warner report and Government decisions on it; and other material that may be relevant. Its remit is for a period of two years from the summer of 1993. Ministers will then review the progress made.

  The members of the support force are:

  Adrianne Jones CBE

  Leader of the support force. Formerly director of social services for Birmingham and Hillingdon. Member of the Warner committee on the recruitment, selection and development of staff in children's homes.

  Louise Bessant

  Co-ordinator, Young People's Forum, Birmingham social services.

  James King OBE

  Former director of the Caldecott Community.

  Brendah Malahleka

  Service manager, children and families, London borough of Ealing.

  Steven Moss

  Assistant director, finance and administration, Manchester city council social services department.

  Robert Sykes

  Assistant director operations, Oxfordshire social services.

  Susan Thomas

  Chief personnel officer, London borough of Lewisham. Member of the Warner committee.

  Mike Nichol

  Formerly chief education officer for the Wirral, Cheshire. Now working as an educational consultant for Coopers and Lybrand.

  Sellafield
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will consult the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment in the event of any application being made to vary the discharge licence from British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield installation;

  (2) what advice she has received from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment concerning the health risk resulting from the proposed liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges from British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield installation; and if she will publish the advice.

  Mr. Sackville
  Applications to dispose of radiactive waste from a licensed site are considered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture,
  293
  Fisheries and Food—"the inspectorates". It is for them to decide who they should consult in any particular case, subject to any relevant statutory requirements.

  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) commented to the inspectorates on British Nuclear Fuel's application for revised discharge authorisations at the Sellafield site. We have arranged for copies of COMARE's response to be placed in the Library. The inspectorates carefully considered all the responses made in the consultation including that from COMARE, before coming to the conclusion announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 28 June at column 392.

  Private Ambulances
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the regulation of private ambulance operators.

  Mr. Sackville
  The code of practice recently agreed by the Department of Health's ambulance policy advisory group sets out minimum standards for non-national health service patient transport providers. It is for prospective purchasers of private ambulance services to satisfy themselves that operators are competent to provide the required service.

  Patients (Major Surgery)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that patients entering(a) NHS and (b) private hospitals have all necessary facilities to safeguard them following major surgical procedures; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  A private hospital is required by law to register with the district health authority, which must satisfy itself that the statutory requirements, and any local conditions of registration, are being met at all times, including adequate medical, surgical and nursing equipment and adequate treatment facilties. It is for national health service providers to assess the level of service need to support surgical procedures, and to provide the staff and facilities to meet those needs. It is for NHS purchasers to satisfy themselves about the quality of the service provided to patients. We have no plans to alter the present arrangements.

  NHS Dental Treatment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average cost of a course of NHS dental treatment per patient liable to full charge in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.294

  General Dental Services (GDS)—England

  Year

  Patients liable to full charge

  Patients wholly exempt or remitted

  Average Cost (£)

  Average Cost (£)

  1979

  13·32

  15·48

  1980

  16·26

  19·20

  1981

  18·13

  26·14

  1982

  19·38

  27·71

  1983

  20·10

  34·42

  1984

  21·49

  37·07

  1985

  21·70

  39·19

  1986–87

  23·46

  42·64

  1987–88

  25·84

  45·13

  1988–89

  28·46

  49·23

  1989–90

  30·24

  47·48

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  31·83

  51·69

  1992–93

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Data from 1979 to 1985 are shown in calendar years. Thereafter they are shown in financial years.

  2. Data for 1990–91 are not available as the introduction of the new dental contract interrupted the data series.

  3. Data for 1992–93 are not yet available.

  4. The small number of courses of treatment where charges were partly remitted has not been included in the calculations.

  5. Before 1 January 1989 dental examinations did not attract a patient charge. Therefore, a course of dental treatment which included only a dental examination did not attact a patient charge. Such courses of dental treatment have been allocated in this table to the appropriate category whether the patient was liable to charges or not.

  Medical Care (Proposed Authority)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to set up a medical/surgical equivalent to the Committee on Safety of Medicines;

  (2) what plans she has for the creation of an Office of Medicine as a statutory body to oversee standards of medical care;

  (3) what plans she has to introduce legislation to ensure that the NHS and the private medical sector are equally accountable and bound by the same regulations under one single regulatory authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such plans.

  Surgeons
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that surgeons do not undertake procedures for which they have not received specific training or accreditation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The accreditation of training posts and systems of postgraduate education, examination and training are matters for the responsible professional bodies. A doctor has a professional responsibility not to undertake a procedure which he or she is not competent to perform.
  295

EMPLOYMENT

  Occupational Hazards
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the 10 most frequent occupational related causes of death for the latest available period.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The most frequent causes of recorded occupationally related mortality in 1991 and/or 1992 were: mesothelioma; accidental trauma; pneumoconiosis; asbestosis; accidental poisoning and gassing; lung cancer due to asbestos; byssinosis; other cancers; and allergic alveolitis, including farmer's lung. There were only occasional deaths recorded from other causes.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what manner Her Majesty's Government have published or publicised the text of the social charter of the European Economic Community as agreed by 11 of its member states at Strasbourg on 9 December 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government have never published or publicised the text of the social charter agreed by the other 11 member states.

  Employment Rehabilitation Centre, Ingol
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the capital cost of the purpose-built employment rehabilitation centre at Ingol, Preston, at the time it was built, expressed in 1993 values; and what price has been agreed for its sale.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Audrey Wise, dated 22 July 1993:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the capital cost of Preston (Ingol) Employment Rehabilitation Centre (ERC) when it was built and the price agreed for its sale. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The building of Preston ERC was completed in 1978 and the centre was opened in 1979. The work involved in retrieving the exact total capital costs of the ERC and converting these to 1993 prices would incur disproportionate costs. I am therefore unable to supply this information.

  The ERC was closed on 31 December 1992 and tenders were invited for its sale. A price has been agreed and the site has been sold subject to contract. You will appreciate that, until the sale is completed and contracts are exchanged, the price agreed is still classified as "Commercial in Confidence" and cannot be revealed.

  I am sorry to have to send you a disappointing reply. However, I am satisfied that all the correct tendering procedures have been followed to ensure we obtain the best possible price for the site.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  296

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Insurance
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions he has reached on the report by the Director General of Fair Trading on the marketing and sale of investment-linked insurance products.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) reported to my predecessor in March about the rules on marketing and sale of investment-linked life insurance products1, made last July by the Securities and Investments Board (SIB) and the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation (LAUTRO). These rules had been drawn up in response to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in December 1990, who asked for changes in the rules to meet the concerns raised in the report of April 1990 by the previous DGFT.

  1 The marketing and sale of investment-linked insurance products. The rules of the Securities and Investments Board and the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation. A report by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, March 1993.

  In his report under the Financial Services Act 1986 (FSA), the DGFT was of the opinion that four aspects of the new rules were likely to have significantly anti-competitive effects. Under the FSA, the Treasury must consider whether the rules are likely to have significant anti-competitive effects and, if it considers that they do, whether those effects are greater than necessary for investor protection.

  In April, the Treasury invited comments on the DGFT's report as well as on his separate report under the Fair Trading Act 19732. Many hon. Members have written to me about the reports, and a large number of written submissions have been received from interested parties, many of which have been discussed in detail with officials. I have taken account of the views and arguments put during this consultation process in reaching my conclusions.

  I endorse the director general's finding that four aspects of the rules have or are likely to have significantly anti-competitive effects. I do not find that these effects are necessary to protect investors. The Treasury is therefore directing SIB to develop a new approach to the regulation of the marketing of life insurance products through rules to rectify the deficiencies identified. My reasons, and the changes the Treasury now requires, are set out below.

  2 "Fair Trading and Life Insurance Savings Products: A Report by the Director General of Fair Trading", March 1993.

  There has been a good deal of justified criticism concerning the proportion of long-term policies surrendered early and the low surrender values of policies surrendered in the early years. The relevant SIB rules are designed to improve regulation and to help the investor by requiring life offices both to disclose surrender values for the first five years of life policies and to indicate the point at which the surrender value may equal or exceed the amount paid by the investor if the crossover point falls outside the first five years. The rules prevent life offices disclosing surrender values for a longer period.

  The DGFT has welcomed the rule changes in so far as they give the investor more information about the long-term and illiquid nature of these investments and about likely surrender values in the early years. However, the DGFT concludes that the absence of information

  297
  about surrender values in the later years of the policy limits the ability of investors to make properly informed choices among the products of different life offices and between life products and other investments; and hence is likely to restrict and distort competition to a significant extent.

  SIB and LAUTRO have concentrated on better disclosure of surrender values in the early years where the major concerns have arisen. Surrender values, however, do vary considerably between life offices in the later years and I agree with the DGFT that lack of information is likely significantly to restrict and distort competition. I have also taken into account other factors relevant to investor protection; in particular, the risk that disclosure of likely cash surrender values for each year of a policy could appear to offer guaranteed returns and could be in serious danger of overloading the investor with a huge array of figures. Any profile of figures which appeared to offer guaranteed returns would have investor disadvantages in so far as it altered life offices' investment behaviour and thus ultimately reduced the returns delivered or raised the cost of a given return; equally, a detailed array of figures, added to all the other quantitative information, could overload investors with complex and confusing details and thereby defeat the object of disclosure. I have examined these arguments and options and concluded that, through fuller disclosure of the implications of early surrender on the value of policies, it should be possible to remove the anti-competitive effect of non-disclosure of surrender values in later years in a way which avoids the danger of appearing to give guarantees and which does not overload the investor.

  The Treasury is therefore directing SIB to develop a new approach and to bring forward rules which will provide a clear and quantified account of the effect of life offices' intended surrender value practices on the value of the policy if cashed in early beyond the initial five years, without implying guaranteed projections or overloading the investor with figures. The new requirements should provide, in plain terms, a clear description of the effect on surrender values throughout the duration of the policy.

  While own charges—the charges currently levied by the particular life office—are required to be used in the calculations of likely surrender values during the first five years of a policy, SIB's and LAUTRO's rules require that illustrations of projected future returns on policies use standard—approximately average—assumptions about the charges levied by life offices. Illustrations are not mandated by the regulators but are a strong marketing tool. Requiring the use of standard charges prevents life offices from producing illustrations which demonstrate the relative merits of their products, thus restricting their ability to compete with others in the market. Use of own charges should also bring downward pressure on costs. I therefore agree with the DGFT that the requirement to use standard charges in illustrations is likely significantly to restrict and distort competition among life offices. Investor protection considerations also argue in favour of use of own charges. Use of standard charges can be misleading to investors by implying that charges do not affect performance when, in reality, charges of life offices to not alter rapidly and do influence total returns. In their joint submission to the Treasury commenting on the DGFT's report SIB, LAUTRO and the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation accept that own charges ought now to be used in illustrations.
  298
  The Treasury is therefore directing SIB to bring forward rules which will require policy illustrations to use the life offices' own recent charges. This information should make clear to investors the full impact of product costs throughout the duration of the policy.

  Within the independent financial adviser sector, individual firms are allowed to and do rebate commission to investors. The final price to the investor can therefore take account of the costs of distribution, with the more efficient advisers being able to offer keener prices. Cost competitiveness is allowed to reign. In marked contrast, SIB/LAUTRO rules have the effect of preventing price competition for a life office's products between its tied channels and outlets. There is no direct rule preventing the rebating of commission by tied agents to their customers. But the best advice rule has been found in practice to prevent differential pricing because it would prevent a tied agent advising the purchase of a particular product if the product were available more cheaply through another tied outlet.

  The DGFT has concluded that rules which prevent some intermediaries from passing through to investors the benefits of cost differentials and efficiencies and which in practice require cross subsidisation between tied outlets are significantly anti-competitive. There has been no real attempt in the representations I have received to argue that the practice is anything other than anti-competitive and I agree with the DGFT's finding. The weight of the representations on this issue has been that the anti-competitive effects of the best advice rule are outweighed by investor protection benefits which also result from the best advice rule; in particular that an investor should be able to expect that if (s)he is buying a life office product through a tied channel, the same product could not be secured more cheaply through another tied outlet.

  I have considered all the countervailing investor protection arguments very carefully, but I do not find them sufficiently convincing to outweigh the competitive disadvantages or even in their own right. I can see no good reason why price competition between tied agents and outlets should not be compatible with the preservation of best advice as well as suitability, just as it is with IFAs. Introducing competition within the tied channels will, on the contrary, result in benefits to the investor.

  The Treasury is therefore directing SIB to adapt the best advice regime to allow differential pricing in the tied sector. As with IFAs, best advice would continue to pertain for the product and value for money/price within the range of products and prices offered by the particular tied outlet.

  SIB and LAUTRO rules require commission, in cash terms, to be disclosed by independent financial advisers if requested by the investor—so-called "soft" disclosure. No such requirement applies to other intermediaries such as tied agents and company representatives. Whether or not the amount of commission is requested by investors, it is disclosed automatically by the life office no later than the start of the cooling-off period, but is expressed as a percentage of premiums to be paid.

  The DGFT has concluded that these rules are likely to distort competition among IFAs and between them and other intermediaries to a significant extent. His reasoning rests mainly on the argument that the IFA sector is a market, separate from the tied agent and direct sales force sectors, in which commission is the price for the advice

  299
  which the investor receives. He therefore calls for the early automatic disclosure of commission, in actual cash amounts, to the investor, only by IFAs.

  I have considered carefully the enormous number of representations about the structure of the life insurance-linked investment market. Polarisation has introduced dichotomies into the marketplace and there are significant differences between the roles of IFAs on the one hand and the tied agents and company representatives on the other. But they are not two completely distinct and separate markets. Their roles and functions overlap and they are in competition with each other for much of the same business. Tied agents and life offices' direct sales forces are also in the business of giving advice, although their advice is restricted to the investment decision and to the choice of product within the range of a given life office. Similarly, commission cannot be regarded simply as the price of advice. I have concluded that to require early automatic disclosure of commission only by IFAs would distort the market further and would be likely to result in a significant reduction in competition by encouraging IFAs to become tied. IFAs offer a valuable range of choice and advice to investors as well as providing an essential element of competition within the industry: it is important that the IFA distribution channel is not disadvantaged in relation to the other distribution channels by the commission disclosure regime.

  The current rule on commission disclosure nevertheless remains a very serious concern in an industry where sales practices are often dominated and perceived to be dominated by the payment of commission. Up-front commissions are of significant size and vary substantially both for similar products between life offices and between different products supplied by the same life office. Especially where the investor is not fully aware of the level of commission received, there is a serious risk of advice being biased by the level of commission received. This risk of bias exists in both the tied and independent sectors. Where commission is not paid, the structure of remuneration and incentives can also create a risk of bias. The current rule discriminates unfairly between IFAs on the one hand and tied agents and company representatives on the other, to the former's disadvantage. By requiring "soft" disclosure only, the current rule also allows products to compete in practice other than on the basis of their price, quality and suitability. I have assessed the evidence and have concluded that the current rule is likely to have the effect of significantly distorting and restricting competition between life offices, distribution channels and products.

  In order not to distort the marketplace, it will be necessary to require automatic disclosure of commission in cash terms at an early stage by all distribution channels or broadly equivalent information in the cases of direct sales forces and bancassurance where commission is not paid. This, of course, should also enhance investor protection in that it will enable investors more easily to judge the extent to which the advice they receive could be biased. I have, however, had to consider carefully whether the likely quality and comparability of the information will be such as to be informative to the investor. I believe that it should be. But the construction of measures for all distribution channels which are meaningful, not open to manipulation and cost effective, requires detailed and expert consideration and a combination of definition and oversight by the regulatory bodies.
  300
  Accordingly, the Treasury is directing SIB to develop proposals for fuller disclosure of commission, as specified above, and the nearest equivalent for distribution channels where commission is not paid or forms only a small element of remuneration. In developing these proposals, I know that SIB will wish to work closely with the industry and other regulatory bodies and I look particularly to the industry to respond constructively to this remit. I am also asking SIB to see that the new regime on disclosure of commission and equivalents is firmly enforced.

  The regulation of the sale and marketing of life insurance policies has been the subject of lengthy—too lengthy—debate. The arguments on each of the points raised by the DGFT are complex, but it is now time to draw the debate to a rapid close so that both firms and regulators can settle down in a stable regime to plan with confidence. This must be in the best long-term interest of investors and the industry alike. Disclosure of more information to their clients, with proper explanation, should hold no fears for advisers, be they IFAs, tied agents or direct sales forces. Indeed, greater transparency should help increase consumer confidence in the life insurance industry and promote healthy competition in the market for long-term savings products.

  The Treasury is therefore directing SIB to bring forward by the end of 1993 detailed new draft rules as described above, or in the case of commission disclosure detailed proposals for how commission and equivalents should be measured. To ensure that they are effective and durable, it is important that the new arrangements are consumer tested before they are introduced. I am also asking SIB to consider adjustments to supervision to secure compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of the new regime and to make an assessment of the potential cost of compliance to ensure that the burdens on business are no more than necessary to deliver fair competition and investor protection.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish his proposals to amend the tax system to allow for reserving in insurance business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In his Budget speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) referred to representations made by the insurance industry and acknowledged that there may be a case for allowing tax relief on certain types of equalisation reserves covering occasional, exceptional losses. Such reserves would have to be within the regulatory framework for the industry. The Inland Revenue and the Department of Trade and Industry will next week be jointly issuing the consultation document which we promised. This looks at the issues in greater detail and invites comments on a number of matters by 29 October 1993.

  As my right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech, tax-deductible equalisation reserves would be a major departure for the British tax system. If there is a consensus that equalisation reserves for particular types of insurance business should become a regulatory requirement, and practical methods of isolating the business in question and of calculating the reserve can be found, we would need to consider carefully whether the introduction of a regulatory requirement, accompanied by tax relief, should be financed by compensating changes elsewhere. Given the

  301
  overall fiscal position, I am clear that it would not be appropriate for the Exchequer to suffer a net cost from the introduction of such a scheme.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Central Statistical Office performed against its key targets for 1992–93; and what changes have been made for 1993–94.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Central Statistical Office's performance against its key targets for 1992–93 is described in the agency's annual report and accounts, which are being laid before the House and published today. The CSO met all 20 of its performance targets relating to the quality of economic statistics and overall met 30 out of 33 targets set for the year. There were significant reductions in the scale of revisions to key economic statistics and in balancing items in the sectoral accounts.

  These improvements continue the significant progress seen in the quality of economic statistics since the formation of the CSO as a separate department in 1989 and its establishment as an executive agency in 1991. The staff of the CSO are to be congratulated on seeing through these substantial developments.

  The CSO's key targets for 1993–94 are set out in the "CSO Programme Strategies 1993–96", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. As before, these targets cover the timeliness of published statistics, the size of revisions, the coherence of key economic statistics, the response rates for statistical inquiries, action to minimise the load on respondents, reponse times to public requests for information and the CSO's running costs, efficiency improvements and receipts. A number of the targets have been tightened for 1993–94 in recognition of the improvement in CSO performance.

  Incomes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the research projects and reviews, including regression analyses, undertaken by the Central Statistical Office and other Government bodies to show the factors related to the trends in disposable income in the 1980s and 1990s at the top and the bottom of the distribution of income among the population of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Central Statistical Office is currently reviewing all aspects of the annual article on "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income". The 1991 article, published in the May edition of "Economic Trends", announced the review and invited readers to comment on the current analysis.

  The Central Statistical Office is not sponsoring any research projects by outside bodies in this area at present.

  Relocation Costs
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount of(a) average, (b) lowest and (c) highest total costs of relocation incurred by an employee and reimbursed or paid directly by an employer in respect of civil servants in (i) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, (ii) Her Majesty's Inland Revenue and (iii) Her Majesty's Treasury in the last two years.
  302
  Mr. Dorrell
  During the past two years, the total amounts of payments made to, or on behalf of, employees relocated by the departments specified—excluding additional housing cost allowances which are only paid to those employees moving to higher cost areas—are given in the table:

  Average £000

  Lowest £000

  Highest £000

  Customs and Excise

  32

  3

  1245

  Inland Revenue

  227

  1

  198

  Treasury

  17

  9

  26

  Notes:1 The highest total payments made are due to a combination of factors including the slump in the United Kingdom housing market, particularly in London and the south-east, and the fact that the employees concerned experienced long delay in disposing of their properties at their former locations. The bulk of the payments represent reimbursed bridging loan interest and special payments to relieve financial hardship of employees in respect of a fall in the value of their properties whilst they were on the market.

  2 This is the average figure of 1991–92, the latest year available.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of(a) all pensioners, (b) single male pensioners, (c) single female pensioners, (d) pensioner couples, (e) single women aged 75 years or over and (f) single men aged 75 years or over, who are in receipt of an occupational pension on the basis of the most recent family expenditure survey data available; and for each group, what is the mean and median amount received.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures in the table are from the 1991 family expenditure survey. Figures are subject to sampling variation. The amounts have been rounded to the nearest 10p.

  Proportion receiving an occupational pension

  Mean amount occupational pension per week

  Median amount occupational pension per week

  Per cent.

  £

  £

  All pensioners

  43·1

  46·90

  30·50

  Single male pensioners

  59·6

  45·80

  28·20

  Single female pensioners

  43·1

  35·50

  24·10

  Pensioner couples

  68·8

  67·50

  40·10

  Single women aged 75 years and over

  36·3

  35·80

  23·30

  Single men aged 75 years or over

  55·6

  40·70

  26·00

  Government Debt
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the distribution of Government debt between the banking and non-banking sectors in each month since the Budget.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: Estimates of gilt sales by sector are published in the Bank of England's monthly monetary statistics press release—public sector

  303
  funding table. Estimates of the sectoral distribution of the level of outstanding national debt are made quarterly and published in the November issue of the "Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin"—tables H and J in the 1992 edition.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy on the proportion of Government debt to be sold to the banking sector.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: The Government's policy is to fully fund their borrowing needs. There is no policy as to the proportion of debt to be sold to any particular sector.

  Surplus Land Sales
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he has issued on maximising the financial return from the sale of surplus land.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Revised guidance on the disposal of land and buildings was issued to Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies on 23 July 1992. The guidance was circulated at the same time to members of the Public Accounts Committee, together with a note setting out the key points.

  VAT
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the liability of VAT of amateur sports and cultural activities in the public sector.

  Sir John Cope
  I am discussing with my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage a VAT exemption for the supply of certain services by non-profit-making organisations and local authorities to persons who take part in sport or physical education. This would be a limited exemption to be introduced by Treasury order. The precise scope of the exemption would be determined after we have discussed with the representative sports bodies the services and sports to be included.

  We shall also be holding discussions with a view to examining the case for exempting certain cultural services and associated goods supplied by public authorities.

  Sterling Deposits
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the gross figures for sterling deposits held in Switzerland by institutions other than the central bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 15 July 1993]: Neither the Bank of England nor the Treasury collects this information.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken to date against the third parties implicated in the Barlow Clowes collapse.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for Barlow Clowes matters rests with the Treasury under the Transfer of Functions (Financial Services) Order 1992.
  304
  The Government continue vigorously to pursue any claims capable of reducing the cost to the taxpayer of the ex gratia payments scheme. Because of a number of outstanding actions, I cannot give details of recoveries made, as doing so might influence their outcome. However, as I said on 16 June, Official Report, columns 613–14, the Government have secured an order for damages against Mr. and Mrs. Clowes in the sum of £31. million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Abu Dhabi (British Detainees)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British detainees in Abu Dhabi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 13 July 1993 all the Bank of Credit and Commerce International detainees in Abu Dhabi were either charged or conditionally released. Five British nationals in detention were charged. One British national, who had been detained, has been released but cannot leave the United Arab Emirates until investigations are completed. A British national who was previously released but unable to leave the UAE has been charged. The trial date has been set for 9 October 1993.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has of the size of(a) regular forces of the Yugoslav army and (b) regular forces of the Croatian army currently present and operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is continuing evidence that Serbian and Croatian Government forces are operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but due to constant troop movements and the difficulties faced by international monitors, it is not possible to provide reliable estimates of their numbers.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Izetbegovic about the maltreatment of mentally handicapped adults and children at Fojnica hospital in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We share the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' concern about the desperate plight of the patients in the hospital in Fojnica. This is a further example of how innocent civilians have suffered as a result of the conflict in Bosnia. We have repeatedly urged all parties to respect the rights and interests of civilians.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress the United Nations Security Council has reported on investigations carried out by the United Nations Sanctions Committee into Croatian breaches of United Nations Security Council resolution 713 following investigations into this matter in September 1992; when Her Majesty's Government received a full report of the alleged violations contained in the case referred by the United Nations Sanctions Committee to the United Nations Security Council in September 1992; if he will publish this report; and if he will make a statement.
  305
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following the discovery of arms consignments in Croatia by United Nations forces in September 1992, the United Nations Sanctions Committee asked the Croatian and Iranian Governments for an explanation. The Croatians denied prior knowledge of the consignment. The Iranian authorities have not satisfactorily explained why the arms concerned were being transported in an Iranian aircraft.

  The equipment has since been destroyed by the United Nations Protection Force on the instructions of the United Nations.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the issue of sanctions against Croatia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Foreign Ministers of the European Community agreed in Brussels on 19 July to consider withdrawing Croatia's preferential trading benefits with the European Community, in view of Croatia's continued involvement in the conflict in Bosnia.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from British forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina of atrocities having been carried out by Muslim forces within the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and what representations have been made to the Bosnian presidency.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British forces deployed in Bosnia under the auspices of UNPROFOR provide us with regular reports about events on the ground there. It is clear that all parties have been responsible for committing atrocities, but the record of the Bosnia Serbs is worst. We have repeatedly urged all parties to respect the rights and interests of civilians.

  Entry Clearance Posts
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what posts have been designated for the purpose of receiving applications for entry clearance in(a) the states comprising the Indian sub-continent, (b) the states comprising the territories of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and (c) Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia and Kenya; and what are the categories of applications applicable in each location.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am arranging to send the hon. Member a full list showing which diplomatic and consular posts accept which kinds of application for entry clearance.

  Debt
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current total of outstanding official debt owed to the United Kingdom by countries in Sub-Saharan Africa; and how much of that debt is owned to(a) the Export Credits Guarantee Department, (b) the Overseas Development Administration and (c) the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Total outstanding official debt owed to ECGD and ODA by countries in Sub-Saharan Africa is currently
  306
  £3·6 billion and £98 million respectively. Debt owed to the Commonwealth Development Corporation is not treated as official debt.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges' Notes (Murder Trials)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to make available to an hon. Member the judge's notes for a murder trial in which one of his constituents wishes him to inquire into his conviction.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Judge's notes are a closed record and not normally made available. The verbatim record of a murder trial is kept for five years, and I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question which appeared in Hansard of 8 July 1993, column 205.

  "A New Framework for Local Justice"
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from magistrates courts committees and their clerks on the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" would lead to a better administration of summary justice.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A list of all those who responded to each consultative document is contained in the relevant decision paper. An analysis of the responses received was published with each decision paper. There has also been regular correspondence and meetings with magistrates courts committee staff, magistrates and their representative organisations.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what account was taken in formulating the proposals in the White Paper, "A New Framework for Local Justice" of the policy of local management empowerment.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" took account of a 1989 scrutiny which recommended that the magistrates courts service should be organised as an executive agency, but concluded that the service should continue to be managed locally. The White Paper addresses weaknesses in the service identified by the scrutiny, while leaving the management of the service in the hands of local committee of magistrates and enhancing the ability of the committees to manage strategically and exercise proper scrutiny of the organisation for which they are responsible.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the potential savings resulting from the implementation of the proposals contained in the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice".

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The White Paper announced wide-ranging changes to the organisational structure of the magistrates courts service. The purpose of these changes is to provide clearer lines of accountability, to secure maximum co-operation in the management of the service with other parts of the justice system, to guarantee the judicial independence of magistrates and their legal
  307
  advisers and to yield improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. Better value for money resulting from the new arrangements should when realised more than offset the transitional costs. The particular savings at local level will depend largely on the management decisions taken by magistrates' courts committees about the way they will implement the changes.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made as to the extent to which the changes envisaged in the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" will lead to the better administration of summary justice in outer London.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The changes announced in the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" will lead to a better administration of summary justice throughout England and Wales including outer London by providing clearer lines of accountability both locally and to the Lord Chancellor, by guaranteeing the judicial independence of magistrates and their legal advisers, by yielding improvements in efficiency and effectiveness and by securing maximum co-operation in the management of the service with other parts of the criminal justice system. The newly formed magistrates courts inspectorate will have a particular responsibility for helping to raise the performance standards of management and administration.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effects of the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" on the independence of justices' clerks.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am entirely committed to the principle of judicial independence. This is why the legislation which, with Parliament's approval, will put the new statutory framework in place, will enshrine in statute a guarantee of judicial independence. Justices' clerks are not judicial officers, but their advice to magistrates in individual cases will not be subject to management direction. In respect of management responsibilities—a very substantial part of the justices' clerks' responsibility —it is important to have a proper framework of line management and accountability. The White Paper reforms will provide this.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which the proposed population criterion for magistrates courts committee areas contained in the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice".

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We have concluded that the number of magistrates courts committees should be reduced in order to yield improvement in efficiency and effectiveness and to secure maximum co-operation with other parts of the criminal justice system. Population is one of a number of criteria developed in consultation with the service against which we will decide how this reduction should be effected.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which magistrates courts committees have(a) a weighted case load of over 90,000, (b) an annual outturn, at 1991–92 prices of over £2·5
  308
  million and (c) a population of over 750,000; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which these reach performance targets.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is set out in the Magistrates Courts Consultative Council document No. 2 "Magistrates' Courts Committee Areas (excluding Greater London)", a copy of which I have arranged to be placed in the Library of the House. The reorganisation proposals for courts committees are intended to lead to improvements in local performance and accountability and these will be measured by performance standards which we are now developing.

  Appeals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the number of cases heard by appeal courts in England and Wales where the original sentence has either been reduced or quashed in the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows the total number of appellants dealt with during the last three years in the Court of Appeal, criminal division and the Crown court —on appeal from a magistrates' court—whose appeals against sentence have been allowed or allowed in part.

  Successful appeals against sentence to the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court during the years 1990 to 1992

  Court of Appeal

  Crown Court

  1990

  1,526

  3,157

  1991

  1,219

  2,941

  1992

  1,049

  2,883

  Judges (Dismissal)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the number of judges dismissed in each of the last three years for incapacity.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No judges have been removed from office on the ground of incapacity in the last three years.

  Judges (Criticism)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the number of appeal court cases where the action of the trial judge has been criticised by the appeal court in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not collected.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what procedures are followed when a judge is criticised by the appeal courts for the way in which he has handled cases appearing before them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr John M. Taylor
  In all cases heard at the Court of Appeal criminal division, copies of judgments of the Court of Appeal are sent to the Crown court centre at which the trial took place. A separate copy is sent direct to the trial judge.
  309

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what programme is in hand to enable drinking water of potable quality to flow to all water taps in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Drinking water supplied direct from the mains is already available from all taps in the parliamentary estate which are so marked. Water supplied to other cold taps—for example, to wash hand basins—may or may not be of potable quality, since some of this water comes from storage cisterns. There are no plans to supply mains water to every cold tap.

  Vote Office
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, which of the domestic Select Committees will have responsibility for the services provided by the Vote Office following the transfer of that office from the Library Department to the Clerk's Department with effect from 1 November.

  Mr. Beith
  The provision of documents and publications to Members by the Vote Office is a matter within the area of responsibility of the Administration Committee, but the Vote Office may need to be associated with the work of other committees as appropriate—for example with the Information Committee in respect of policy relating to information technology.

SCOTLAND

  Salmon
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the report of the Salmon Advisory Committee on factors affecting emigrating smolts and returning adult salmon, with particular reference to the provisions of the Salmon Act 1986 and other legislation relating to dams and weirs; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  This report has been extremely helpful. As a result, I propose to consult further in the autumn on the provision of fish passes and fish screens, with a view to making regulations under the Salmon Act 1986.

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the annual report and accounts of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today published the report, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Courts
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets have been set for completing office business in the sheriff courts and supreme courts; and what performance was secured in 1992–93.
  310
  Mr. Lang
  The targets set for completion of office business in the sheriff courts in 1992–93 are set out. These targets remain in force for 1993–94. The percentage figures following each target indicate the proportion of sheriff courts achieving the target figures or better in the course of the year. More detailed information on the performance of individual court offices will be made available to local court advisory committees. Similar targets are in force in the supreme courts and all of these were achieved in 1992–93.

  Targets for sheriff clerk offices and performance 1992–93

  Per cent.

  To issue the first deliverance in all ordinary writs, or return to sender, within two working days of receipt.

  95

  To issue the first deliverance in all summary cause actions—including small claims—or return to sender, within three working days of receipt.

  94

  To draft, in preparation for signature, all final ordinary decrees in absence—excluding divorce—within one working day of receipt of the minute craving decree.

  90

  To draft, within seven days of receipt of the affidavits, in preparation for signature, all final decrees in undefended ordinary actions of divorce or return the affidavits to the sender.

  87

  To draft, in preparation for signature, all decrees in actions of divorce under the simplified procedure within one working day of expiry of the period of notice.

  97

  To issue extract decrees in all ordinary actions— excluding divorce—within three working days of the date of ordering or the expiry of the days of appeal —whichever is the later.

  84

  To issue all summary cause/small claim extract decrees within one working day of the due date.

  95

  To issue extract decrees in all ordinary actions of divorce within one working day of the due date.

  84

  To issue extract decrees of divorce under the simplified procedure within one working day of the due date.

  89

  To issue the first deliverance in all petitions for sequestration/liquidation, or return to sender, within two working days of receipt.

  90

  To prepare for signature the first deliverance in all adoption petitions within one working day of a correct petition being received.

  90

  To scrutinise and accept or reject commissary petitions and inventories within two working days of receipt.

  93

  To issue confirmation within three working days of acceptance of inventory.

  90

  To conduct small estate interviews within seven days from the time an interview is requested.

  98

  To process juror claims for payment, or return to sender, within two working days of receipt.

  98

  To process postal fines—other than unidentified payments—on day of receipt.

  99

  To issue warning letters, means enquiry citations, warrants, extracts, etc., and transfer fines within seven days of the trawl.

  96

  311

  Per cent.

  To remit all non-Exchequer receipts to entitled parties within 14 days from the end of the last accountancy period.

  96

  To effect a card reconciliation of all outstanding financial penalties on a monthly basis.

  96

  To reply to letter pleas within one working day of the court.

  99

  To order social enquiry and other reports within one working day of the court.

  99

  To complete probation, community service, compensation and fines supervision orders within two working days of the court.

  99

  To issue juror citations in the first instance at least 21 days prior to a jury sitting/trial.

  99

  To reply to all letter inquiries except those which require extensive investigation within two working days of receipt.

  93

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what objectives for reducing court waiting periods have been established; what targets have been set for 1993–94 in respect of court waiting periods for the supreme and sheriff courts; and if he will give details of the performance of the supreme courts and each of the sheriff courts in 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  The programming of court business is a matter for the judiciary. Acting in co-operation with the judiciary in the supreme and sheriff courts, the Government seek to provide the resources which will allow speedy access to justice. Having regard to the time required by parties to have their cases properly prepared, the following objectives have been adopted:the Lord President of the Court of Session has accepted the recommendations of a committee chaired by Lord Maxwell relating to the reduction of waiting periods in the supreme courts: the target is to reduce waiting periods to the recommended levels and, subject to any acceleration in the rate of increase in court work, maintain waiting periods at that level: for certain categories of hearing, additional targets involving much reduced waiting periods, have been set;
  sheriffs principal have agreed to overall targets of reducing waiting periods for summary criminal trials in the sheriff courts to 12 weeks or less by the end of 1993–94 and to hold them at that level thereafter; and to maintain waiting periods at 12 weeks or less for civil cases in the sheriff courts.

  The main targets for waiting periods for 1993–94 are set down—"waiting period" is the period between a trial or proof being requested or an appeal being received and the date assigned expressed in weeks. The same targets applied in 1992–93 and national performance for that year is noted in the second column.

  Target

  1992–93 performance

  Criminal Appeal Business

  Summary prosecutions:

  Notes of Appeal against Sentence and Stated cases (accused in custody)

  4

  4

  Court of Session

  (a) Ordinary proofs

  24

  20

  (b) Defended Consistorial proofs

  17

  17

  Sheriff Courts (national average)

  312

  Target

  1992–93 performance

  (a) Civil proofs/debates

  12

  11·6

  (b) Summary Criminal Trials

  12

  14·8

  In 1992–93, waiting periods of 12 weeks or less were achieved for civil debates/proofs in 84 per cent. of sheriff courts.

  Waiting periods of 12 weeks or less were achieved for summary criminal business in 72 per cent. of sheriff courts.

  Performance of individual sheriff courts at 31 March 1993 is set out in the table:

  Court

  Civil proofs

  Summary criminal trials

  Falkirk

  15

  17

  Kirkcaldy

  15

  12

  Dingwall

  14

  14

  Hamilton

  14

  15

  Airdrie

  14

  17

  Stirling

  14

  11

  Glasgow

  13

  22

  Dumbarton

  13

  10

  Dumfries

  12

  12

  Fort William

  12

  14

  Arbroath

  12

  12

  Stonehaven

  12

  16

  Wick

  12

  12

  Dornoch

  12

  12

  Stornoway

  12

  12

  Cupar

  11

  12

  Kirkcudbright

  11

  10

  Stranraer

  11

  11

  Rothesay

  11

  10

  Aberdeen

  11

  12

  Peterhead

  11

  11

  Kilmarnock

  11

  10

  Linlithgow

  11

  15

  Peebles

  10

  11

  Dunoon

  10

  12

  Inverness

  10

  11

  Tain

  10

  10

  Lanark

  10

  12

  Oban

  10

  9

  Campbeltown

  10

  6

  Selkirk

  10

  9

  Edinburgh

  9

  8

  Alloa

  9

  13

  Dunfermlin

  9

  15

  Jedburgh

  9

  9

  Banff

  9

  10

  Perth

  9

  12

  Duns

  9

  9

  Portree

  8

  8

  Lochmaddy

  8

  12

  Greenock

  8

  12

  Elgin

  8

  8

  Dundee

  8

  12

  Forfar

  8

  6

  Haddington

  8

  19

  Kirkwall

  8

  8

  Ayr

  7

  12

  Lerwick

  6

  6

  Paisley

  6

  14

  In addition, the sheriffs principal have agreed that sheriff court programmes should be designed to ensure that the number of trials adjourned due to lack of court time should not exceed 5 per cent of the total number set down, a target met in 87 per cent of sheriff courts.
  313

  Council Tax
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the entitlement of a disabled person to reduction of council tax.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 July 1993]: There are several provisions designed to ensure that the council tax payable in respect of a disabled person's sole or main residence is not higher than it would be if the house was not that person's residence. These operate whether or not the disabled person is liable for payment of the council tax.

  Any fixtures designed to make a house suitable for a person who is physically disabled must be ignored in the valuation of a house if they would tend to add to its value.

  Many people with disabilities require extra space in the form of a second kitchen or bathroom, an extra room of another type or wheelchair circulation space. These features might tend to increase the valuation of a house and hence its council tax bill. To avoid this, a disabled person's home with any of these features is taxed as if it was in the valuation band below that shown in the valuation list. As houses in band A already carry the minimum bill, their occupants are not facing any increase due to someone's disability and no reduction falls to be made in their case.

  Islands Shipping Services
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) of 26 May,Official Report, column 589, if he will list the consultants which his Department has invited to tender for the studies into the financial assistance which he provides for lifeline shipping services and the organisation and structure of Caledonian MacBrayne; if he will require them to declare any actual or potential conflict of interest and to give a commitment not to use for any other purpose the information gleaned during the course of the study; if he will publish the terms of reference of the study; and if he will publish the report.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: The consultants who have been invited to tender for the review of shipping subsidies and study of options for the future organisation and structure of Caledonian MacBrayne are as follows:

  Ash Consulting Group

  Coopers and Lybrand

  KPMG Management Consulting

  Noble and Company Ltd.

  PA Cambridge Economic Consultants Ltd.

  Price Waterhouse

  Quayle Munro Ltd.

  Touche Ross and Co.

  The consultants will be required to declare any actual or potential conflict of interest and due consideration will be given to this issue in deciding which consultants should be appointed to undertake the studies. The consultants will be bound by standard Scottish Office conditions of contract for consultancy services which require that confidential and commercially sensitive information

  Expenditure on discretionary awards (£000) in 1991–92 constant prices

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–90

  1990–91

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  219·6

  Camden (1)

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  377·2

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  1,244·0

  314
  obtained by reason of the contract shall not be disclosed for any other purpose. When the contract for this assignment is awarded, I shall arrange to place in the Library a copy of the terms of reference for the studies. The studies will necessarily involve examination of confidential and commerially sensitive information which it would not be appropriate to publish. However, the Scottish Office will discuss with the consultants the extent to which it would be possible to publish the findings and conclusions of the studies without breaching commercial confidentiality.

EDUCATION

  General Studies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy with respect to supporting general studies as a full A-level with equal status to other subjects as regards university requirements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Admission requirements are a matter for individual higher education institutions.

  School Meals
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research has been undertaken by his Department into the reintroduction of required standards for school meals.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has not undertaken any research in this area.

  Discretionary Student Grants
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock),Official Report of 13 July, column 822, if he will publish the figures held by his Department regarding discretionary grants; and if he will list the spending at 1992 prices on discretionary grant awards by each local education authority in the last five years for which figures are available, indicating the political control of each authority.

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of the numbers of and spending on discretionary awards by local education authorities are published in the Department's regular statistical bulletins, copies of which are in the Library. Information on expenditure on discretionary awards by each local education authority in England and Wales, at 1991–92 prices, for years between 1986–87 and 1990–91—the latest year for which a breakdown is available—is included in the table. Information for the academic year 1988–89 is not readily available and cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. Details of the political control of each authority during that period can be found in the relevant volumes of the "Municipal Year Book", copies of which are in the Library.
  315

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–90

  1990–91

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  3,246·0

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  80·8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  483·1

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  1,050·3

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  862·0

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  756·3

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  918·3

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  3,921·5

  City of Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  280·2

  ILEA/LRB [2]

  27,192·8

  28,991·6

  20,129·3

  8,871·6

  Barking

  672·9

  527·7

  835·7

  286·1

  Barnet

  1,017·4

  771·5

  522·7

  530·6

  Bexley

  563·3

  433·7

  352·1

  424·1

  Brent

  5,145·3

  4,447·8

  919·8

  886·4

  Bromley

  814·1

  920·6

  983·8

  980·3

  Croydon

  719·0

  773·8

  732·8

  746·2

  Ealing

  1,284·5

  1,451·7

  1,876·4

  1,331·8

  Enfield

  510·4

  588·8

  292·2

  566·8

  Haringey

  1,084·3

  937·6

  702·1

  112·9

  Harrow

  428·0

  340·2

  393·9

  398·5

  Havering

  438·7

  604·5

  494·1

  668·5

  Hillingdon

  780·9

  613·4

  671·4

  349·7

  Hounslow

  464·5

  467·6

  490·1

  373·1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  332·1

  268·8

  276·4

  464·9

  Merton

  393·5

  308·5

  463·0

  519·7

  Newham

  887·7

  891·6

  1·123·6

  845·4

  Redbridge

  469·0

  449·6

  486·7

  988·1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  606·1

  515·7

  567·5

  658·6

  Sutton

  308·6

  341·7

  341·6

  371·6

  Waltham Forest

  875·3

  1,128·2

  1,205·2

  970·3

  Birmingham

  1,754·5

  1,707·5

  1,907·5

  2·889·4

  Coventry

  799·7

  896·5

  794·0

  780·1

  Dudley

  473·3

  643·2

  744·1

  717·9

  Sandwell

  1,039·7

  1,019·8

  1,076·8

  957·8

  Solihull

  309·2

  283·9

  305·9

  379·8

  Walsall

  1,173·5

  1,261·2

  1,169·9

  1,715·7

  Wolverhampton

  247·9

  277·5

  273·5

  297·8

  Knowsley

  1,657·5

  1,729·7

  1·103·6

  1,257·8

  Liverpool

  2,999·2

  3,261·1

  6,787·0

  6,427·4

  St Helens

  858·9

  795·7

  814·4

  757·5

  Sefton

  662·8

  599·8

  791·6

  1,290·4

  Wirral

  1,644·9

  1,682·4

  1·908·1

  1,823·0

  Bolton

  1,389·4

  1,368·7

  1,193·7

  1,473·9

  Bury

  1,106·4

  1,239·6

  1,048·1

  1,047·9

  Manchester

  2,941·4

  2,991·8

  2,233·6

  2,156·1

  Oldham

  668·2

  688·5

  1,329·5

  862·1

  Rochdale

  659·5

  566·6

  626·9

  876·2

  Salford

  895·2

  830·7

  793·6

  815·6

  Stockport

  977·4

  986·6

  1,032·5

  813·8

  Tameside

  554·6

  511·6

  406·4

  496·0

  Trafford

  682·4

  779·4

  813·0

  0·0

  Wigan

  1,519·1

  1,281·9

  964·1

  725·8

  Barnsley

  882·2

  1,100·8

  1,343·4

  1,479·5

  Doncaster

  781·2

  785·7

  766·0

  927·5

  Rotherham

  834·3

  974·2

  855·6

  816·6

  Sheffield

  3,170·7

  3,041·8

  2,880·3

  2,563·4

  Bradford

  2,435·6

  3,008·4

  1,865·6

  2,071·4

  Calderdale

  444·8

  612·8

  667·6

  584·2

  Kirklees

  2,408·9

  2,592·1

  2,920·5

  3,149·8

  Leeds

  2,113·2

  2,723·8

  2,661·8

  2668·1

  Wakefield

  1,136·7

  1,348·0

  1,305·0

  1,318·8

  Gateshead

  391·3

  407·4

  607·9

  767·8

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  946·8

  848·8

  915·8

  1,078·4

  North Tyneside

  1,178·8

  1,320·1

  1,241·0

  994·1

  South Tyneside

  362·1

  449·0

  540·8

  503·1

  Sunderland1

  1,846·5

  1,584·4

  0·0

  n/a

  Isles of Scilly

  105·2

  112·4

  91·3

  0·0

  Avon·

  4,418·1

  4,321·4

  3,089·6

  n/a

  Bedfordshire

  1,787·4

  2,525·8

  1,525·0

  1,295·5

  Berkshire1

  1,474·7

  1,752·4

  1,441·2

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  1,198·1

  1,290·2

  1,288·9

  1,340·7

  Cambridgeshire

  1,417·4

  1,540·4

  1,813·7

  1,892·3

  Cheshire

  5,228·9

  5,210·2

  5,442·3

  8,112·1

  Cleveland

  2,053·1

  2,012·5

  2,021·2

  2,284·8

  Cornwall

  1,913·7

  1,723·5

  2,444·1

  2,638·8

  Cumbria

  3,083·6

  3,038·5

  2,744·3

  4,140·9

  Derbyshire

  3,796·4

  3,407·1

  3,888·7

  5,109·2

  Devon

  5,378·4

  5,640·1

  5,463·2

  5,481·5

  316 317

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–90

  1990–91

  Dorset

  2,408·4

  2,500·8

  2,847·1

  3,666·0

  Durham

  1,224·8

  1,038·6

  1,492·6

  2,006·0

  East Sussex

  1,811·6

  1,783·3

  1,027·6

  1,387·7

  Essex

  7,106·1

  8,467·7

  6,692·7

  6,789·0

  Gloucestershire

  3,385·5

  2,985·8

  3,058·5

  3,017·1

  Hampshire

  11,848·1

  11,201·1

  6,428·9

  6,899·6

  Hereford and Worchester

  1,475·5

  1,326·4

  1,447·0

  1,553·6

  Hertfordshire

  2,486·9

  2,780·6

  4,508·6

  3,639·8

  Humberside

  4,494·7

  4,585·6

  5,212·0

  5,691·6

  Isle of Wight

  551·1

  541·6

  562·5

  391·5

  Kent

  7,217·3

  6,877·8

  5,743·4

  6,185·6

  Lancashire

  7,343·6

  7,012·0

  9,899·8

  10,415·7

  Leicestershire

  4,976·2

  5,382·2

  5,484·3

  6,177·1

  Lincolnshire

  2,178·4

  1,971·3

  1,600·7

  1894·8

  Norfolk

  2,426·6

  2,443·2

  2,612·1

  3,073·6

  North Yorkshire

  6,182·0

  6,466·4

  5,826·1

  9,248·6

  Northamptonshire

  1,710·7

  1,264·9

  1,133·9

  1,712·0

  Northumberland

  1,851·0

  1,804·9

  2,233·0

  2,407·3

  Nottinghamshire

  4,016·3

  4,023·2

  4,509·4

  3,213·4

  Oxfordshire

  1,519·5

  1,260·1

  1,241·5

  1,339·1

  Shropshire

  1,751·8

  1,795·2

  1,689·0

  1,835·8

  Somerset

  1,328·3

  1,555·5

  1,907·3

  1,819·5

  Staffordshire

  2,220·0

  2,758·4

  1,856·4

  1,870·9

  Suffolk

  2,673·1

  2,527·5

  2,588·8

  3,263·7

  Surrey

  2,254·4

  2,220·1

  2,076·3

  2,094·4

  Warwickshire

  1,192·0

  1,858·3

  1,049·6

  1,212·7

  West Sussex

  1,161·8

  1,055·8

  1,256·6

  1,514·2

  Wiltshire

  2,129·1

  1,947·2

  1,898·1

  1,882·5

  Clywd

  1,693·2

  1,671·4

  2,041·1

  2,078·6

  Dyfed

  1,928·3

  1,744·5

  2,206·6

  2,608·0

  Gwent

  2,780·0

  2,975·0

  982·9

  882·2

  Gwynedd

  1,266·9

  1,127·1

  919·7

  1,130·4

  Mid-Glamorgan

  584·9

  479·3

  1,833·4

  1,578·7

  Powys

  786·6

  757·8

  904·4

  1,010·5

  South Glamorgan

  1,540·6

  1,502·0

  1,399·0

  1,608·5

  West Glamorgan

  1,058·4

  1010·3

  978·9

  1,108·4

  1LEAs unable to provide appropriate information·

  2ILBs took over responsibility from ILEA for most awards in 1990–91; some awards were made by the London residuary body·

PRIME MINISTER

  Bermuda
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Bermuda Government about bringing the law on consensual sexual relations between adult men in private into line with the legislative position in Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  This is primarily a matter for the Government of Bermuda. Nevertheless, I expressed my concerns about this issue to the Premier of Bermuda when we met on 14 July. The Premier indicated that the Bermuda Government may look further at this issue after their general election to be held before May 1994.

  Name

  Minister(s) served

  Date of appointment

  Previous employer

  K. Adams

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  28 May 1993

  Rt. Hon. John Gummer

  P. Barnes

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  3 May 1993

  Boston Consulting Group

  C. Blunt

  Secretary of State for Defence

  15 February 1993

  PI Political Consultants

  Sir R. Braithwaite*

  Prime Minister

  1 June 1992

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  T. Burke*

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  10 April 1992

  Green Alliance

  J. Caine

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  17 June 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  D. Cameron

  Jointly to the three Ministers of State and the Under Secretary of State in the Home Office

  21 June 1993

  Conservative Central Office

  Dr. E. Cottrell

  Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  27 May 1993

  Conservative Central Office

  318

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 November,Official Report, column 216, if he will publish the current list of special advisers attached to Ministers stating the Minister they work for, the date of their appointment and the name of their previous employer before their initial appointment as a special adviser attached to a Minister.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: There are currently 41 special advisers attached to Ministers. The names of the advisers, the Ministers they work for, the date of the appointment and the name of their previous employer before their initial appointment as a special adviser is as follows:
  319

  Name

  Minister(s) served

  Date of appointment

  Previous employer

  Dr. W. Eltis*

  President of the Board of Trade

  1 January 1993

  National Economic Development Office

  Sir C. Foster*

  Secretary of State for Transport

  1 June 1992

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  M. Fraser

  Minister of State for Overseas Development

  10 April 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  C. Grantham

  Secretary of State for Education

  11 April 1992

  Westminster Briefing

  J. Gray

  Jointly to the Ministers for Local Government and Inner Cities; Environment and Countryside; and Housing and Planning

  27 May 1993

  GNI Ltd.

  D. Green

  Prime Minister

  1 June 1992

  Business Television

  Professor P. Hall*

  Secretary of State for Environment

  27 May 1993

  University of California

  Mrs. S. Hogg

  Prime Minister

  10 April 1992

  Daily and Sunday Telegraph

  Ms S. Hole

  Chief Whip

  13 April 1992

  Lord Rothschild

  A. Kemp*

  President of the Board of Trade

  28 May 1992

  CDP Nexus Ltd.

  Mrs. T. Keswick

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  28 May 1993

  Cluff Investments and Trading

  Mrs. E. Laing

  Secretary of State for Transport

  13 April 1992

  Shopping Hours Reform Council

  K. Leggett*

  Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  21 June 1993

  National Farmers Union

  D. Loehnis

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  7 November 1992

  Sunday Telegraph

  G. Mackay

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  8 May 1992

  Pieda plc

  M. MacLay

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  19 July 1993

  The European

  R. Marsh

  Secretary of State for Health

  21 April 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  Ms S. McEwen

  Chief Whip (House of Lords)

  29 June 1992

  Namara Cowan Ltd.

  M. McManus

  Secretary of State for Employment

  28 May 1993

  Conservative Central Office

  Dr. J. Nicholson*

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  1 September 1992

  John Nicholson Associates Ltd.

  Sir I. Pearce*

  Secretary of State for Transport

  16 June 1992

  Richard Ellis and English Estates

  Lord Poole

  Prime Minister

  13 May 1992

  James Capel

  Mrs. K. Ramsay

  Prime Minister

  2 June 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  P. Rock

  Home Secretary

  28 May 1993

  Conservative Central Office

  A. Rosling

  Prime Minister

  10 April 1992

  Hanson plc

  D. Ruffley

  Financial Secretary

  28 May 1993

  Clifford Chance

  R. Salmon*

  Secretary of State for Transport

  18 January 1993

  Cuff & Co. Ltd. and Fund Holdings Ltd.

  I. Stewart

  Lord President

  27 April 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  Lady Strathnaver

  President of the Board of Trade

  21 April 1992

  Haymarket Publishing Services Ltd.

  J. Swift*

  Secretary of State for Transport

  18 January 1993

  Barrister

  N. True

  Prime Minister

  10 April 1992

  Public Policy Unit

  I. Wilton

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  27 April 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  A. Young

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  8 May 1992

  —

  * Special advisers fall into two categories, political and those with specialised expertise relevant to their appropriate Secretary of State. The latter are indicated by an asterisk.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Olympic Bid
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times (1) he has met the leaders of Manchester city council to discuss the bid to stage the Olympic games;
  320
  (2) how much financial support the Government have committed to the Manchester bid to stage the Olympics; and how much money has so far been paid over.

  The Prime Minister
  I have met the leader of Manchester city council with other members of the bid committee three times to discuss the British Olympic bid; I launched the formal bid document with the committee at Downing street on 17 February; and I have met them informally on a number of other occasions.

  Up to £75 million has been made available by the Government for the bid itself and for the construction of key facilities. Of that, some £22 million has been spent to date. If the bid is successful, the Government will ensure that all the necessary facilities are built by a mixture of private and public finances and that the funding necessary to stage and organise the games is provided.
  321

  Meetings
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met(a) Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi and (b) the Pakistan high commissioner to the Court of St James.

  The Prime Minister
  I last met Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi on 25 July 1989 when I was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I last met the Pakistan high commissioner on 29 March this year.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister what pressures Her Majesty's Government are putting on the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina to attend and fully co-operate with the peace talks in Geneva; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We are encouraging the Bosnian presidency to engage in direct negotiations with the other parties under the auspices of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg. We have repeatedly made clear that a lasting and equitable peace can be achieved only by a negotiated settlement freely agreed by all three parties. We will not accept a territorial solution for Bosnia dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslims.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to discuss the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds at the forthcoming United Kingdom/French summit; and if he will make representations to the French Government over the fulfilment of the directive's protection for migratory birds from netting, shooting and trapping;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of France concerning the requirements under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds to control the hunting and shooting of wild birds.

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware of any proposals by the French Government for the admendment to the birds directive. Nor do I expect the matter to be raised at the meeting between Heads of State currently planned. There have been discussions by EC Environment Ministers on proposals by the Commission to amend annex III of the directive, but no agreement has yet been reached.

  Security Service
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the directive circulated to former members of the security service regarding the biographer of the late Sir Dick White.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no authorised biographer of Sir Dick White. Although the Government have recently taken a number of significant steps towards greater openness for the security and intelligence services, they continue to attach the highest importance to maintaining the principle that members and former members of those services are under a lifelong duty of confidence to the Crown in relation to information deriving from their employment.
  322

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Tourism
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the developments that have so far been completed under the terms of the EC tourism operational programme; what proportion of those projects were funded by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) from EC sources; how many developments are yet to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Those projects assisted under the tourism operational programme for Northern Ireland 1990–93 which have been completed by 30 June 1993 are listed. Her Majesty's Government did not fund the projects which were assisted by the European regional development fund.

  Capital Development

  Dunluce centre, Portrush

  The Navan centre, County Armagh

  The Tower museum, Londonderry

  18th century gaol block, Downpatrick

  Ballance house phase II, Glenavy

  Lough Neagh discovery centre

  Palace stables, Armagh

  Sinton's mill, Blackwater town

  Ulster and American streets, Ulster American folk park, Omagh

  Ulster history park visitor centre, Omagh

  Ballycastle seafront development

  Benone tourism complex phase III

  Banbridge gateway tourist information centre

  Lislap cottage restoration, Gortin

  Round lake, Fivemiletown

  Sixmilewater caravan park, Antrim

  Corn mill, Castleward

  Warrenpoint promenade, stage I, phase II

  International youth hostel, Londonderry

  Queen Mary's hostel, Belfast

  Glenada house, Newcastle

  Benone III, environmental improvements

  Margy bridge, Ballycastle

  Ardclennis activity centre, Co Fermanagh

  Bannview squash club, Craigavon

  Belleek and district development trust cruising project

  Belleekci pottery enhancement of visitor centre

  Portrush parascending project

  Lockside cruises, Co Fermanagh

  Lusty Beg island cruiser, Co Fermanagh

  Raspberry Hill health farm

  Rosskit slipway facilities, Co Fermanagh

  Down Royal racecourse visitor facilities

  Bushtown House hotel, leisure/conference facilities

  Glenavon House hotel, leisure/conference facilities

  Lough Erne yacht club

  Lough Beg leisure facilities, Co Londonderry

  Non Capital Developments: Studies

  Ballycastle marina

  Ballyleidy golf project

  Ballyronan tourism project development

  Belfast City centre hotel, Laganside

  Belfast science centre

  Bessbrook tramway

  Coalisland canal

  Coalisland heritage development

  Colebrook development

  Disabled access to tourist accommodation

  Down Royal racecourse

  Equestrian development

  Glens of Antrim

  Sustainable tourism

  Lecale/Down area

  Lough Neagh

  Newry/Portadown canal

  Roe Valley development

  South Armagh tourism development

  323

  South Down tourism development

  St Patrick's country heritage centre

  Strabane canal

  A further 55 capital and 35 non-capital projects were under way at 30 June.

  The European social fund is also supporting an on going programme of training for the tourism and hospitality industry. To date, a total of 1,162 people have benifited from this training.

  Select Committees
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the views given by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Procedure Committee in its review of the working of Select Committees in Session 1989–90 on a Select Committee for Northern Ireland remain the Government's position.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  As the Government have repeatedly made clear, a Select Committee may, in principle, be desirable. But a number of issues, including the extent of support from elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, need to be considered. The Government keep the matter under review.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the estimated savings made in 1992–93 as a result of the introduction of a charge for sight tests.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: The sum is £2·3 million.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many national health service eye examinations have been undertaken since 1985 in each health and social services board and in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: The number of health service sight tests undertaken in each year is shown in the table.

  Thousands

  Health and Social Services Board

  Calendar year

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Northern Ireland Total

  1985

  100·8

  55·0

  31·7

  31·8

  219·3

  1986

  105·3

  57·2

  32·9

  33·2

  228·6

  1987

  113·5

  61·3

  34·9

  35·2

  244·9

  1988

  130·6

  67·2

  41·4

  40·4

  279·6

  11989

  86·0

  48·4

  28·3

  29·2

  191·9

  1990

  45·1

  30·0

  20·0

  19·8

  114·9

  1991

  52·3

  35·0

  23·9

  24·7

  135·9

  1992

  62·0

  39·2

  27·4

  28·6

  157·2

  1 From 1 April 1989 health service sight tests were restricted to certain groups in the population. The 1989 figures therefore include sight tests carried out under both the old and the new schemes. Consequently the 1989 figures are not directly comparable with those in 1990.

  Eye Disease
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the incidence of eye disease leading to blindness or hospital treatment in Northern Ireland giving the numbers of people involved.
  324
  Mr. Ancram
  [holding reply 21 July 1993]: Information on the incidence of all eye disease is not available centrally.

  Activity in the speciality of ophthalmology in Northern Ireland hospitals for the year from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 is as set out below:

  Number

  Admissions

  5,992

  Day cases

  2,750

  Outpatient referrals

  21,832

  Cases operated on

  6,095

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were registered blind and partially sighted in each year since 1985; and what figures are projected for registrations in(a) five and (b) 10 years time.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding reply 21 July 1993]: The information is not available in the form requested. The numbers of blind and partially sighted people in contact with, or known to, health and social services boards are presented in the tables below. This includes some people who are not registered. Information on projected figures in five and 10 years' time is not available centrally.

  Year

  Number of blind people

  Number of partially sighted people

  19851

  3,437

  1,285

  19861

  3,534

  1,304

  19871 3

  3,833

  1,383

  1988–892

  3,568

  1,167

  1989–902 4

  2,497

  869

  1990–912

  2,974

  1,087

  1991–922 5

  3,116

  1,254

  1Blind and partially sighted people known to health boards.

  2Blind and partially sighted people in contact with health boards.

  3Includes estimated data.

  4Boards were in contact with a further 579 visually impaired people who were not categorised.

  5Provisional data.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Newton
  The functions of the Privy Council Office do not include the provision of assistance to small businesses.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmon
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the degree to which the provisions of section 14 of the Salmon
  325
  and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, concerning the duties of proprietors of undertakings that take water to instal gratings of an approved type to prevent the passage of migratory fish, are being enforced; what consideration she has given in this context to the report of the Salmon Advisory Committee on factors affecting emigrating smolts and returning adults; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Responsibility for ensuring compliance with the requirements of section 14 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 rests largely with the National Rivers Authority. We will be discussing with it the question of enforcement of that provision in the light of the comments made by the Salmon Advisory Committee in its report.

  Melatonin
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the commercial use of melatonin in lamb production.

  Mr. Soames
  Melatonin is a naturally occurring substance which controls the ovulation cycle in ewes. Products containing melatonin can be administered to ewes to enable them to be mated earlier in the season before the usual peak of reproductive activity. Melatonin is classified as a veterinary medicine and all products containing it must be licensed under the Medicines Act 1968 before they can be made commercially available. One such product has been licensed, following a rigorous scrutiny of its efficacy, quality and safety, including safety to the animal. Melatonin is available on prescription only and must be used under the direction of a veterinary surgeon.

  The Farm Animal Wefare Council is currently undertaking a study of the sheep industry. It will offer advice to the Government on the welfare of sheep and is expected to consider the use of substances such as melatonin. The results of the study are due by the end of the year.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many new cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been reported in(a) England and (b) Lancashire since the end of April.

  Mr. Soames
  From 1 May to 16 July 1993, 6,748 suspected cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been reported in England to the Ministry. Of these, 327 have been reported in Lancashire.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the current and planned programmes undertaken by her Department to monitor the effect of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant's aerial and marine discharges on(a) seals and other marine mammals and (b) sea birds; and if she will make it her policy to publish the results of the monitoring undertaken at regular intervals.

  Mr. Jack
  A decision on whether THORP should be allowed to operate will not be made until after the further 326
  consultation announced on 28 June by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been completed. In the light of that decision, I will review the need, if any, for changes to my Department's already extensive environmental monitoring programmes. The results of these programmes are reported annually and copies are placed in the Library of the House.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives from the Pesticide Exposure Group of Sufferers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I met representatives of the Pesticide Exposure Group of Sufferers on 3 September 1992. A number of incidents relating to the safety of pesticides and sheep dips were discussed. I emphasised that it was important that those who discussed. I emphasised that it was important that those who believed themselves to have been adversely affected by exposure to pesticides should report the incident immediately to their local Health and Safety Executive office or, in the case of sheep dips, to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—telephone No. 0932 336911 Ext 3040—and provide as much evidence as possible. It was only in this way that an incident could be properly investigated.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents arising from exposure to organophosphate sheep dips have been reported in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992; and what were the occupations of the people involved.

  Mr. Soames
  The following numbers of suspected adverse reaction reports to organophosphorus sheep dips involving humans have been received by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate:

  Number

  1991

  132

  1992

  133

  The occupations of the people involved were:

  Farmer

  Farm worker

  Contract dipper

  Lorry driver

  Housewife

  Animal health inspector

  Builder

  Police constable

  Trading standards officer

  A number of reports also involved children, while others did not include information on the occupation of the person involved.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the sheep dips currently granted approval by her Department, indicating which ones contain organophosphates.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:
  327

  Product name

  Product licence holder

  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIPS

  1. Paracide Plus

  Battle Hayward and Bower Ltd.

  Also known as Paracide Plus when sold by:

  Downland Marketing Ltd.

  Chapman and Frearson Ltd.

  Messrs J. Todd and Son

  The Vale of Tivy Agriculture Society Ltd.

  Messrs J. S. Hubbuck and Son

  H&G Farm Feeds

  Ray Green Animal Health

  Colin Henderson

  Metcalf Feed Formulations

  Agripharm Animal Health

  Yorkshire Animal Health

  Also known as Summer Fly Dip when sold by:

  Battle Hayward and Bower Ltd.

  2. Diazadip All Seasons Scab Approved Dip

  Bayer UK Ltd.

  3. Topclip Gold Shield Scab Approved Sheep Dip

  Ciba-Geigy Agriculture

  Also known as Paracide Fly and Scab Dip when sold by:

  Battle, Hayward and Bower Ltd.

  Also known as Diazadip Scab Approved All-purpose Sheep Dip when sold by:

  Bayer UK Ltd.

  4. Coopers Powerpack Winter Dip

  Coopers Animal Health Ltd.

  5. Coopers Powerpack Summer Dip Scab Approved

  Coopers Animal Health Ltd.

  6. Osmonds Gold Fleece Sheep Dip

  Osmond and Son (Dublin) Ltd.

  Also known as Golden Fleece Sheep Dip when sold by:

  Bimeda UK Ltd.

  Also known as Deosan Diazinon Sheep Dip when sold by:

  Suicides among farmers and farm workers by month of occurrence, sex and age, 1989

  Males

  Females

  16+

  16–64

  65+

  16+

  16–59

  60+

  January

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  February

  4

  4

  —

  1

  1

  —

  March

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  April

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  May

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June

  6

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  July

  5

  2

  3

  1

  1

  —

  August

  5

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  September

  7

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  October

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  November

  6

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  December

  4

  3

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Total

  58

  46

  12

  3

  3

  —

  Suicides among farmers and farm workers by month of occurrence, sex and age, 1990

  Males

  Females

  16+

  16–64

  65+

  16+

  16–59

  60+

  January

  7

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  February

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  March

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  328

  Product name

  Product licence holder

  Deosan Ltd.

  Also known as Downland Scab Approved Fly Dip when sold by: Osmond and Son (Dublin) Ltd.

  7. Young's Scab Approved Summer Dip

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  8. Young's Scab Approved Flyte 1250 Sheep Dip

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Also known as Seraphos Scab Approved Sheep Dip when sold by:

  Crown Vet Pharmaceuticals

  Also known as Downland Seraphos when sold by:

  Downland Marketing Ltd.

  9. Rycovet Sheep Dip (Scab) Approved

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  NON-ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIPS

  1. Bayticol Scab and Tick Dip (Scab Approved)

  Bayer UK Ltd.

  2. Coopers Green Label Scab and Tick Dip

  Coopers Animal Health Ltd.

  3. Taktic

  Hoechst UK Ltd.

  Farmers (Suicides)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is she will publish figures showing the number of suicides occurring monthly within the farming population in the United Kingdom within each of the last four years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information shown in the tables is for England and Wales. Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and Learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  329

  Males

  Females

  16+

  16–64

  65+

  16+

  16–59

  60+

  April

  7

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  May

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  —

  June

  5

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  July

  4

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  August

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September

  8

  6

  2

  —

  —

  —

  October

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  November

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  51

  38

  13

  2

  2

  —

  Suicides among farmers and farm workers by month of occurrence, sex and age, 1991

  Males

  Females

  16+

  16–64

  65+

  16+

  16–59

  60+

  January

  3

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  February

  5

  3

  2

  1

  —

  1

  March

  10

  6

  4

  1

  1

  —

  April

  11

  9

  2

  —

  —

  —

  May

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  July

  4

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  August

  5

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  September

  7

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  October

  6

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  November

  4

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  December

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Total

  61

  43

  18

  3

  2

  1

  Suicides among farmers and farm workers by month of occurrence1, sex and age, 1992

  Males

  Females

  16+

  16–64

  65+

  16+

  16–59

  60+

  January

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  February

  8

  6

  2

  —

  —

  —

  March

  4

  4

  —

  1

  —

  1

  April

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  May

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June

  4

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  July

  5

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  August

  6

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  September

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  October

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  November

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  December

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  46

  36

  10

  1

  —

  1

  1 This table does not include those deaths that occurred in 1992 but not registered until 1993.

TRANSPORT

  Motorways
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects(a) the M65 to M6/M61 link, (b) the widening of the M6 between junctions with the M61 and M55 and (c) the widening of the M6 between the junctions with the M56 and M62 to be completed.

  Mr. Key
  For(a) construction is planned to start early next year and is expected to take three years to complete; for (b) work is in progress and is expected to be completed by December 1994; and for (c) work is again in progress with completion expected in spring 1996.
  330

  Continental Freight Depots
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which sites have been designated as continental freight depots; and when construction will commence.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has selected nine sites, at Glasgow (Mossend), Teesside (Wilton), Wakefield, Manchester (Trafford Park), Liverpool, Birmingham (Landor Street), Cardiff, London (Stratford) and London (Willesden).

  Birmingham, Cardiff, Liverpool and Teesside are existing terminals. Trafford Park and Willesden are all but completed. Work at Glasgow is expected to start within the next two months. Construction of the terminal at Wakefield will commence once agreement is reached

  331
  between BR and its development partners. Stratford will come on stream once demand warrants a second terminal to serve London and the south-east.

  Disabled Passenger Scheme
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport, what are the expected savings to be made from the repeal of the disabled passenger scheme.

  Mr. Key
  I understand the saving will be in the region of £500,000 in the first year, based on the approximate annual number of new applications.

  Current beneficiaries under this scheme will not lose their entitlement to exemption from vehicle excise duty as a result of the repeal.

  Severn Bridge
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the changes in transport movements across the Severn bridge in each of the last three years; and what assessment he has made on the effects of price increases.

  Mr. Key
  The following figures are for traffic crossing the bridge westbound from England to Wales:

  Period

  Number of vehicles (millions)

  May 1990 to April 1991

  9·3

  May 1991 to April 1992

  9·5

  May 1992 to April 1993

  8·8

  It is not at present possible to isolate the effects of toll increases. The increases in April 1992 coincided with the introduction of one-way tolling. It is likely that this will have reduced westbound traffic and increased eastbound traffic.

  Arrangments are in hand to monitor traffic from Wales to England.

  World Heritage Sites
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new roads have been built across world heritage sites in Britain in the past five years.

  Mr. Key
  None in England. Roads in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales respectively.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 July,Official Report column 587, what is the average cost to the DVLA of supplying a printout to a magistrates court of a driver's licence history needed to assist in sentencing; what is the average delay between receipt of a requests from a magistrate's court and the printout being supplied; and what would be the capital and running costs of supplying magistrates courts with live terminals to enable them to obtain the information themselves.

  Mr. Key
  The current average cost to DVLA for a driver licence printout is £1. Most printouts are despatched from DVLA within five working days of 332
  receipt of the request. The cost of supplying magistrates courts with terminals to enable them to obtain the information direct is a matter for My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. Such a system would add approximately £0·5 million to DVLA's annual running costs.

  Airports
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he received the report of the RUCATSE working group into south-east runway capacity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have now received the report. It is a thorough and useful piece of work which will help set the framework for an informed debate on this important subject. The report deals with the issue of the possible need for more runway capacity in the south-east; the timing of that need; and sets out the advantages and disadvantages of development at a number of sites. It makes no recommendations about which site should be developed.

  A feature of the working group was its particularly wide-ranging membership. Local area representatives, environmental groups and the air transport industry have all been associated with the analysis set out in the report. I am sure that this diversity will make the report all the more useful. I therefore want to thank all those involved for the time and energy they have devoted to the work.

  I am today putting a copy of the report in the Library of the house and will send copies to members with constituencies near those sites subject to detailed assessment.

  Given the importance of this subject, I will attach particular weight to the consultation process which begins today. I invite all those with an interest in the subject to let my Department know their views on the issues raised in this report by the end of May 1994.

  Motorway Charging
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made by his Department in technological methods of charging cars for the use of motorways, with particular reference to electronic charging on motorways funded by the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Green Paper, "Paying for Better Motorways" (Cm 2200), which was published on 26 May, describes a number of possible systems of electronic charging for motorways. We keep in close contact with technological developments in this country and abroad. In particular Department of Transport representatives participate in the relevant European bodies undertaking research and development standards for possible future applications.

  M25
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has anything to add to his answer of 19 July concerning the additional flows of vehicles on the M25 motorway expected from the construction of a single additional lane; and what approximate increase he expects in vehicle flows in vehicles per hour and in overall percentage terms.
  333
  Mr. Key
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 19 July,Official Report, columns 75–76.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has made of delays on motorways occasioned by various factors, other than traffic demand; and if he will now make a comprehensive study of all causes of delay on the M25 before authorising public expenditure on additional lanes or new parallel roads.

  Mr. Key
  Studies have been made of roadworks sites from which estimates of delays can be made. We also currently have a research contract running to study the effects of incidents, for example, accidents and breakdowns, on the operation of motorways generally which will enable delays due to such incidents to be estimated.

  I have no plans for a study of delays for the M25.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measurements have been made of delays to vehicles wishing to join the M25 motorway between its intersections with the M3 and M40, other than those occasioned by accidents, shed loads, roadworks or other non-demand factors.

  Mr. Key
  No measurements have been made of delays to traffic wishing to join the M25 between its junctions with the M3 and M40 from any causes.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his plans for improving the M25.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The M25 is the hub of the national motorway network. Many other motorways—M1, M40, M4, M3, M23, M20, M11 and Al(M) lead off it. It is, therefore, a key component in the movement of long-distance national and international traffic, in particular by enabling traffic from the midlands and the north of England to reach the south-east and the channel without going through London. It is essential for our industry and commerce, upon which we depend for our further economic prosperity, that it should work effectively. Besides its national importance, it is also very important at the regional level, playing a major part in the economic development of the south-east.

  This importance is reflected in its very heavy use. The White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", published in May 1989, announced plans to widen the whole of the motorway to dual four-lane standard as part of the motorway widening programme. Work on this is proceeding. Widening between junctions 15 and 16 is currently in progress and earlier this year we consulted local interests on our proposals for widening within existing highway boundaries between junctions 7 and 8 and 10 and 11.

  However, it has become clear that on certain sections in particular traffic volumes have been rising and will continue to rise to the point where dual four lanes will not be enough to prevent chronic congestion. This problem is particularly acute on the section between junctions 12 and 15—between the M3 and the M4. That is why, as a first phase, we published in June 1992 proposals for dual three-lane link roads to augment the existing dual four-lane road. Although these proposals were welcomed in some quarters, they attracted understandable concern in others, particularly from those living near the motorway.
  334
  I have, therefore, considered very carefully all the issues raised by those who question the justification for these proposals. My conclusion is that the balance of public interest lies in taking these proposals forward and that the link roads should proceed to the next stage in the statutory process.

  In reaching my conclusion, I have looked particularly carefully at alternatives to the link road proposals. I do not believe that any of these would be an adequate response to the magnitude of the problem. Even with improved traffic management, such as the pilot scheme I have recently announced for controlled motorway operation, additional capacity will be needed. Without it, heavy lorries and other long-distance traffic will increasingly divert to the local road network to the point where conditions become intolerable for local people. Nor is increased use of rail transport a feasible option; there are no existing lines able to cope with the variety of journeys of those using the motorway and it is unrealistic to consider building new lines, nor would they match up to requirements. The link roads, moreover, are designed for purposes other than commuting and other journeys into London.

  Junctions 12 to 15 present the most pressing problem, which we have addressed first. But junctions 15 to 16 between the M4 and the M40 will also present a serious congestion problem in future, even after current widening to four lanes is completed. I am therefore today launching a public consultation on link roads on this stretch as well.

  However, in deciding to proceed to public inquiry for junctions 12 to 15 and to launch a public consultation for junctions 15 to 16, I can give a number of assurances.

  First, I have no plans for similiar link roads around the whole of the motorway. I forsee no need at all for widening beyond D4 between junctions 3 to 10 and junctions 21 to 30. I cannot rule out the need for widening beyond D4 on the remaining stretches—junctions 10 to 12, junctions 16 to 21 and junctions 30 to 3. The need for this will not become clear until future work has been carried out by consultants and any proposals would not necessarily be in the form of dual three-lane link roads. A solution involving fewer additional lanes might be acceptable.

  Secondly, I am determined that the greatest attention should be given to the environmental aspects of the proposals. The fact that we are intending to devote some two thirds of the land taken on junctions 12 to 15 to mitigation measures, including extensive landscaping and planting, not only shows my enthusiam for this but means that there will be considerable landscaping and noise barrier improvements over the existing section. And the proposals will naturally be subject to a very full environmental impact assessment in conformity with EC directives and the Department's new manual of environmental assessment, which can be considered at the inquiry.

  Thirdly, my intention to proceed with the link roads does not imply any diminution in the Government's committment in the regional strategy for the south-east to encourage investment to the east of London. We have a very substantial programme of investment in road improvements to the east to which we shall continue to give high priority within the public spending constraints we face. For example, work is starting this year on the £200 million Hackney-M11 link.

  Fourthly, the Government continue to be strongly committed to improving conditions for rail users on Network SouthEast and users of other public transport.

  335
  Last year, investment in London Transport and Network SouthEast was running at three times that in roads in London. The citizens charter commits us to improving conditions for both road and rail users and I intend to honour this commitment.

  The Government are currently consulting on the introduction of charges or tolls for the motorway network — "Paying for Better Motorways", Cm. 2200. No decisions have yet been taken, but if the Government decide to pursue a policy of charging or tolling and the necessary legislation is passed by Parliament, the M25, including the link roads, could be part of the charged network. I do not expect any motorway charging system that might be introduced in the future to remove the urgent need to increase the capacity of these already over-used sections of the M25. Depending on the results of the consultation exercise and subsequent decisions and legislation, these and other motorways widening schemes could also be candidates for private financing.

  A copy of the detailed departmental response to the proposals for junctions 12 to 15 has been placed in the Library. Copies have already been circulated to those who commented and other interested parties. Copies of the public consultation document on junctions 15 to 16 are also available.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the reactivation, or construction of additional stations on the proposed alignment of the Crossrail link between Westbourne Park and Wembley Park, with particular reference to those providing interchange with main bus routes.

  Mr. Norris
  It is for the promoters of the CrossRail Bill to consider whether such stations would be justified in operational and financial terms. I understand that several possible station sites are being considered.

  Land Compensation Act 1973
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much compensation has been paid by his Department under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Key
  The amounts paid in recent years are £9·6 million in 1989–90, £36·1 million in 1990–91, £31·1 million in 1991–92 and £36·5 million in 1992–93. I regret that information for 1988–89 and earlier years is not readily available.

  Rail Tracks
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety training is given to contractors' staff working on British Rail tracks; and what assessment he has made as to the adequacy of these arrangements.

  Mr. Freeman
  Contractors' staff working on British Rail tracks receive the same thorough safety training as British Rail employees exposed to the same risks. Improving the safety of all personnel working on tracks is a strategic objective in British Rail's safety plan. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate monitors the safety arrangements for railway employees and contractors.
  336

  Alcohol-related Offences
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances(a) EC nationals and (b) non-EC nationals may legally drive in the United Kingdom while banned from driving for alcohol-related offences in their own countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The removal of the right to drive in another member state or other non-EC country applies only in that jurisdiction. Drivers banned in other countries may drive here provided they are not banned in the United Kingdom. Work has recently started under European political co-operation in the judicial co-operation working group on criminal matters to explore the possibility of an agreement which would mean that a driver disqualified from driving in one member state would not be able to drive elsewhere in the Community.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances persons banned from driving by British courts for alcohol-related offences may legally drive in other EC countries during the period of their suspension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The jurisdiction of the British courts only applies to this country. Drivers banned here may legally drive elsewhere in the European Community.

  Peter and Michael Whiting
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the deaths of Peter and Michael Whiting at Ospringe bridge on 14 July.

  Mr. Freeman
  I much regret to report that at 14.45 on Wednesday 14 July two contractors were struck and killed by the 13.35 Victoria to Dover Western Docks train while working at Ospringe Road bridge, Faversham. The contractors were employed by Lowery of Ashford. Network SouthEast is conducting an internal inquiry into the accident. An inspecting officer from the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate also attended the scene and made inquiries. HSE will consider the findings of these investigations and decide whether any action is necessary.

  British Rail
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) British Rail staff and (b) contractors' staff have been killed in the course of their duties in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate maintains records of railways accidents and casualties. However, its records do not differentiate between railway operator and contractors' staff, nor do they readily differentiate between railway operators.

  Fatalities in respect of railway and contractors' staff for the latest available five-year period are:

  Number

  1987

  16

  1988

  16

  1989

  18

  1990

  22

  1 1991–92

  17

  337
  1The 1991–92 period runs from April 1991 to March 1992. There were five fatalities in the first three months of 1991.

WALES

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement outlining the progress made to date by local authorities in Wales on maintaining registers of disabled children; and when he expects the first registers to be completed.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Two local authorities indicate that registers have been established. Two authorities hope to complete the register within six to nine months. Another is writing to parents seeking consent to inclusion of children's names on the register and cannot predict the date of completion. Three authorities plan inter-agency consultation later this year to establish unified registers.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research has been undertaken by his Department concerning the availability of locally based respite care facilities for children with disabilities in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The range of local respite care services in Wales was identified in paragraphs 3.11–3.14 of the report of a survey undertaken by social services inspectorate, Wales in August 1991 on "Organisation of Services to Children with a Disability".

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of local authorities in Wales which(a) provide advice and counselling to children with disabilities and their parents, (b) prepare children with disabilities for independence, (c) provide respite care for children with disabilities and (d) provide full-time accommodation for children with disabilities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All authorities have indicated that they provide these services.

  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of patients treated within hospitals in Wales for organophosphate poisoning by health authority area in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Based on information supplied by hospitals, the number of discharges and deaths of people treated as in-patients or day cases in NHS hospitals in Wales for toxic effects of organophosphate and carbamate for the years requested is given as follows:

  Discharges and deaths of in-patients and day cases treated for toxic effect of organophosphate and carbamate1

  Health Authority of residence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Clwyd

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Gwent

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  1

  South Glamorgan

  1

  —

  —

  1

  West Glamorgan

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1 Figures may understate the true position in that not all hospitals supply complete medical details on patient discharges and deaths.

  338

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the ratio of schoolchildren aged between three and 19 years to speech therapists in each local education authority in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities in Wales who provide respite care(a) within the context of planned packages of care, (b) as relief care only and (c) on an emergency basis.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All local authorities in Wales arrange respite care as(a) planned packages of care, (b) relief care only and (c) on an emergency basis, and all identified respite care in different forms as part of their social care plans and within their plans under the mental handicap and mental illness strategies.

  Village Halls
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide additional funds to assist village halls in Wales to implement the requirements of(a) the Children Act 1989 and (b) EC directives on hygiene.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Financial support to village halls is available under a number of schemes, including the strategic development scheme, the capital grants to voluntary youth services, village halls and community centres programme, and the social grants scheme operated by the Development Board for Rural Wales. Expenditure incurred for the purposes of compliance with the Children Act and EC directives on food hygiene is eligible for consideration under these schemes; and is funded from within existing provision.

  Decisions on resources available under these schemes for 1994–95 have not yet been taken.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce measures enabling patients awaiting hospital treatment to transfer from hospitals with longer waiting lists for that particular treatment, to hospitals with shorter waiting lists.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  General practitioners already have the ability to refer patients to hospitals, or consultants, with the shortest waiting lists. The waiting times information service and Health Line Wales have been established to provide patients and GPs with accurate and up-to-date information on waiting times.

  The decision to refer a patient to a particular hospital or consultant depends upon many factors, however. These include not only the length of the waiting list but also the suitability of the treatment available and the patient's own wishes. Where appropriate, I hope that general practitioners will seek to pursue the shortest waiting lists for their patients.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons of pensionable age were revealed in the 1991 census in Wales.
  339
  Mr. Redwood
  The 1991 census recorded 570,932 persons of pensionable age resident in Wales.

  Secure Unit Report
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 273, whether the consultant's report on the proposed new secure unit in south Wales has now been received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The joint Welsh Office and local authority working party has wholeheartedly adopted the feasibility report of its consultants, submitted to it at its meeting on 16 July. The report clearly recommended a site in west Glamorgan for the location of the proposed regional secure unit and it is now for that authority to consider the report before submitting a grant application to the Welsh Office. I very much hope that they come to an early decision to proceed so that work on the new unit can commence as quickly as possible.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to lay before Parliament regulations to govern the disposal of the housing stock owned by the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 empowers me to make regulations to govern the disposal of housing stock owned by the Development Board for Rural Wales. I have today laid such regulations before the House.

  In December 1991, draft regulations for this purpose were subject to public consultation. In framing these proposals, due consideration was given to existing provisions for disposal of new town housing in England, but also to the fact that the board owns houses in four different local authority areas; to the very sizeable proportion of the total social rented housing stock in Mid-Wales that the board's stock represents; to matters of timing; and to the likelihood of a continued role for the board in promoting development in its areas after the disposal of its housing stock.

  Views were sought on the questions of the appropriate way to decide the outcome of any formal consultation, that is to say whether the outcome should reflect the majority view or the individual preference of all who vote.

  All the responses to the public consultation have been carefully considered.

  I have decided upon some changes to the draft regulations featured in that consultation, and to act upon certain comments through administrative means as and when appropriate.

  A list of those who responded has been placed in the Library of the House. Most respondents who commented on the matter believed that the outcome of a formal consultation should reflect the majority view. Having considered this, I, too, am now persuaded by arguments that this will be appropriate in the mid-Wales context, will be simple, and will encourage serious prospective landlords to come forward, thus giving tenants the greatest choice reasonably possible. The regulations which I have laid before Parliament provide for this.

  I expect the disposal process to take approximately two years to complete and shall task the board to publish a proposed timetable.
  340
  Under the regulations, the board's housing will be sold to social landlords—housing associations or local authorities—and will be available for social renting. Housing associations will be able to meet the price by borrowing against the expected net income. Local authorities will be issued with supplementary credit approvals to cover the purchase price, if they are successful.

  In all this, tenants' interests will be respected. Those who transfer to local authorities will remain secure tenants, benefiting from the rights described in my council tenants charter. Those who transfer to housing associations will become assured tenants, and benefit from the rights secured through the tenants guarantee issued by Housing for Wales. Existing tenants' right to buy will continue in each case.

  The flexi-ownership scheme operated by the board will be discontinued. An earlier consultation on proposals to introduce a national rents-to-mortgages scheme for council tenants, sought views on whether it should extend to secure tenants who transfer to housing associations. Our conclusion in the light of the responses we received was that it should not, so the statutory scheme will apply only to tenants who transfer to local authorities.

  I do not expect that all the board's stock will be disposed of to a single new landlord; its geographical spread makes this unlikely. Terms of all disposals will be subject to negotiations between board and prospective new landlords.

  In the regulations, I have provided for tenants' views to be taken into account in drawing up the short-list of prospective landlords for each parcel of stock, and in deciding how the stock should be divided; and, of course, for their collective wishes to decide the outcome of any contest between prospective landlords. I propose to provide funds for the tenants to receive professional advice throughout the process of disposal to underpin the exercise of their legal rights.

  The development board will have the responsibility, under the regulations, to transact the business of disposal, but all disposals will be subject to my consent, as the statute requires.

  Subsequent disposals of stock by a new landlord will also be subject to my consent, other than exempt disposals such as to a sitting tenant with the right to buy. My consent for a subsequent disposal will be given only if there is good reason for it.

  The board will remain able to promote mid-Wales development effectively after disposal of its housing. We shall continue to address requirements for new social housing in mid-Wales, primarily through Housing for Wales and locally active housing associations, whatever the outcome of the disposal process.

  The provisions which I have laid before the House will ensure expeditious and appropriate disposal of the board's stock; will secure tenants' interests, offer them the greatest choice reasonably possible, and respect their collective wishes; and will permit continued effective promotion of mid-Wales development.
  341

ENVIRONMENT

  Composting Scheme, Kirklees
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to monitor the composting scheme introduced by Kirklees council.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Kirklees scheme, which has been supported by my Department's supplementary credit approvals programme, is one of a number of imaginative composting schemes being run by local authorities and other organisations throughout the country.

  We are currently reviewing our programme of work on monitoring pilot recycling collection schemes. As part of this review, we will consider whether to include composting schemes such as the one introduced by Kirklees council.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the increase in average council rents between 1989–90 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  The estimated average weekly unrebated rent for local authority dwellings in England in 1989–90 was £20·86 and the provisional figure for 1993–94 is £33·54, an increase of 61 per cent.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which have written to his Department in support of a new public inquiry into any proposed discharge authorisation associated with the development of THORP.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information which the hon. Member requests is not readily available. I assure him, however, that all the relevant correspondence has been read and considered and the views expressed will be taken into account in the deliberations of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the scope of works covered by the disabled facilities grant.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. Disabled facilities grants are already available for a wide range of mandatory and discretionary adaptation works to benefit disabled people.

  Outer-city Areas
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has commissioned or conducted into the specific problems encountered by outer-city areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  In managing its sizeable research effort the Department recognises the need to identify problems wherever they occur. Much of the research it commissions on housing renewal and urban regeneration as well as land use planning is relevant to the various problems encountered in outer-city areas. Individual studies are listed in the Department's annual newsletters, which are available in the House of Commons Library.
  342

  Organochlorines
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been undertaken by his Department upon the effect of organochlorines on aquatic ecosystems.

  Mr. Yeo
  Organochlorines have an extremely wide diversity of forms and uses and many occur naturally. Environmental concern about their aquatic effects relates to those substances which might be particularly toxic, persistent or bioaccumulative, as reflected in lists I and II of EC directive 76/464 on dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment and in the new north-east Atlantic convention.

  The Department has a programme of research directed at establishing environmental quality standards for priority substances of this nature where these have not been suitably researched within the EC programme of work. This includes consideration of a variety of organnochlorines. Reports of the research studies are widely available through the Department Library.

  Housing (Disabled People)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instruction will be issued by his Department to local authorities to meet the housing needs of disabled people in their arrangements for community care.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department and the Department of Health jointly issued guidance to English local authorities about their role under the community care arrangements in circular 10/92, "Housing and Community Care", on 24 September 1992. A copy of the circular is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been undertaken to date by his Department resulting from the Ernst and Young research report into the housing needs of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The study of the housing needs of elderly and disabled people commissioned by the Department from Ernst and Young management consultants has now been completed and a series of reports on discrete elements of the project are being prepared. The intention is to publish a summary report later this year and provide the individual reports on request. It is also proposed to produce guidance to local housing authorities on methods for assessing the housing needs of elderly people and the comparative costs of different housing and housing with care options to meet their needs.

  My Department will also be publishing the findings from a separate but related study, to which Ernst and Young contributed, on the role of housing agency service in enabling disabled people to remain in the community or transfer out of institutions. It is planned to publish this report next month.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources have been made available to local authorities towards meeting the housing needs of disabled people resulting from the implementation of community care.

  Mr. Baldry
  Community care in itself creates no new category of entitlement to housing and housing needs
  343
  which are identified by community care planning and individual assessments should be considered alongside existing processess and local priorities. The resources available to authorities should allow the proper discharge of their responsibilities to all sections of the community.

  City Grant
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those projects in the west midlands region that have received city grant funding in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is shown:

  Approved Grant (£)

  1988–89

  Birmingham

  Startpoint industrial units

  283,000

  Kings Norton business centre

  1,260,000

  The Bond office

  361,355

  Coventry

  Seven Stars industrial estate

  1,627,000

  Sandwell

  Windmill Lane housing

  775,000

  Total

  4,306,355

  1989–90

  Birmingham

  Bordesley village housing, phase 1

  1,401,257

  Waterlinks mixed development (Aston Cross)

  6,200,000

  Browning street housing

  902,000

  Constitution hill indian restaurant

  67,933

  Jewellery business centre

  934,271

  Arcadian centre mixed development

  3,200,000

  Garrison Lane industrial units

  570,000

  Coventry

  Hay lane offices and shops

  624,000

  Dudley

  Washington centre

  3,500,000

  Sandwell

  Batmans hill housing

  1,399,431

  Walsall

  Davenport warehouse and offices

  110,000

  Walsall chamber of commerce offices

  68,377

  Wolverhampton

  St Marks church offices

  368,865

  Total

  19,346,134

  1990–91

  Birmingham

  Holford phase II

  6,329,000

  Bordesley village housing

  3,720,603

  Europa distribution depot

  175,000

  Coventry

  Harnall lane housing

  592,000

  Dudley

  Sandhar's discount store

  85,000

  Bloomfield Park Tipton trading estate

  1,660,000

  Sandwell

  Kings hill business park

  1,388,500

  Wolverhampton

  Old Heath road units

  154,421

  344

  Approved Grant (£)

  Total

  14,104,524

  1991–92

  Birmingham

  Crosby works offices

  126,350

  Birmingham Cable Ltd. HQ

  345,650

  Scott house media workspace

  800,000

  Waterlinks house offices

  1,133,000

  Trafalgar road housing

  595,985

  Dudley

  Grazebrook industrial park

  3,736,020

  Colonial works industrial units

  1,195,290

  Waterfront Cophorne hotel

  1,139,000

  Waterfront west office development

  899,500

  Charlotte streets units

  197,082

  New road industrial units

  475,885

  Waterfront west offices phase II

  705,870

  Sandwell

  Sandwell Golf Centre

  40,500

  Regis court offices

  60,000

  Tipton office development

  125,462

  Walsall

  Tame works managed workspace

  431,000

  Wolverhampton

  Lanesfield drive industrial units

  1,480,062

  Tettenhall road offices

  740,300

  Wrekin

  Telford exhibition centre

  371,000

  Total

  14,597,956

  1992–93

  Birmingham

  Bordesley village housing Phase III

  206,000

  Coventry

  Parkside offices phase I

  580,000

  Dudley

  Waterfront point north offices

  2,903,025

  Waterfront west business park

  2,432,420

  Wollaston road housing

  1,302,612

  Wolverhampton

  Shaw park offices Mk 2

  112,000

  Springvale industrial units

  2,282,000

  Spring road industrial units

  670,680

  Wolverhampton racecourse redevelopment

  3,037,000

  Bushbury lane industrial units

  113,000

  Total

  13,638,737

  1993 to date

  Dudley

  Addison road housing

  760,000

  Kings court offices/shops

  250,000

  Wrekin

  Station road housing, Telford

  434,000

  Total

  1,444,000

  Grand Total

  67,437,706

  345

  Building and Fire Advisory Committees
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes of meetings of the Buildings Regulations Advisory Committee and the Fire Advisory Panel.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. Both the Buildings Regulations Advisory Committee and the Fire Advisory Panel are appointed to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on matters relating to the Building Regulations. Such advice is confidential, as are the minutes of their meetings recording the discussions leading to that advice.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority-owned houses were empty at the last date at which figures were available; what information he has on the length of time they had been vacant; what is his estimate of the rent forgone for each local authority during the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  At 1 April 1992 the number of local authority owned properties in England that were empty and available for letting, either immediately or after minor works—that is, excluding dwellings awaiting major works or due to be sold or demolished—was 40,400, representing 1·1 per cent. of all local authority dwellings.

  The available information on the length of time these dwellings had been vacant is as follows:

  Time vacant

  Number of dwellings vacant

  Three weeks or less

  15,400

  Over three weeks but not more than six weeks

  8,900

  Over six weeks but not more than six months

  10,600

  Over six months but not more than one year

  2,400

  Over one year

  3,200

  Total

  40,400

  The number of empty local authority dwellings available for letting, either immediately or after minor works fell substantially between April 1990, when it stood at 51,500–1·3 per cent. of all dwellings—and April 1992 as a result of improved management performance by local authorities.

  Estimates are not compiled centrally of the rent forgone while dwellings are vacant.

  Accessible Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions will be issued to housing departments' building control and planning authorities by his Department to clarify their relationships and respective responsibilities with regard to the provision of accessible housing.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Building Regulations Advisory Committee is currently studying the desirability and practicability of extending part M of the Building Regulations, covering access for disabled people, to cover dwellings. Once I have received that advice I will consider what further guidance is given to local authorities.
  346

  Local Authorities (Gas Supplies)
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he holds as to how many local authorities in England now receive all or part of their gas supply from a supplier other than British Gas.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Councillors—Electors Ratio
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines have been given to the Commission reviewing local government about the optimum councillor/elector ratio.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The ratio of councillors to electors must be as nearly as possible the same in every electoral division or ward in an authority. Beyond that, it is a matter for the commission's judgment in each review area.

  Local Government Review, Durham
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure the results of the MORI poll commissioned by the Local Government Commission in relation to Durham are published immediately upon completion of the poll.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions on publication are for MORI and the Local Government Commission.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment (1) what is his latest estimate of the total number in each council tax band in England of(a) dwellings, (b) exempt dwellings, (c) chargeable dwellings that are subject to a disabled reduction, (d) diplomats dwellings, (e) chargeable dwellings entitled to a single discount for the purposes of council tax, (f) chargeable dwellings that are entitled to two discounts for the purposes of council tax and (g) total equivalent number of dwellings after discounts, exemptions, and disabled relief;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the number of band D equivalents in each council tax band in England;

  (3) what is his latest estimate of the number of dwellings on the valuation list in England that were exempt in each class A to Q.

  Mr. Gummer
  The statistical returns from local authorities which contain the information requested are currently being processed. I will provide the information as soon as it is available.

  Rent-a-room Scheme
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many rooms have been let under the rent-a-room scheme; and how many of these rooms have come into letting since the scheme began;

  (2) if he will identify the cost of the rent-a-room scheme in its first year of operation; and what the anticipated cost is for 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information about the number of rooms let under the rent-a-room scheme can only be obtained from housing surveys. Information about the cost of the scheme can only be obtained from a special analysis of tax returns. Data are not available from either source yet.
  347
  There are no forecasts of the costs in either 1992–93 or 1993–94.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many city challenge projects he has visited.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since he took up office, the Secretary of State has visited a number of city challenge projects. City challenge partnerships also receive regular visits from the sponsor Minister and other Ministers in this Department.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many city challenge authorities have now initiated exit strategies.

  Mr. Baldry
  Many city challenge partnerships have begun to plan their exit strategies. My Department will be issuing guidance on this in due course, and we expect partnerships to consider their strategies in the light of that.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the space and standard requirements for new social housing development schemes.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no space requirements for new social housing development schemes. Other standards, which the Housing Corporation requires as a condition of grant or loan to housing associations, are set out in part 4 of the Housing Corporation's procedure guide. A copy of this guide has been placed in the Library.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to respond to the recommendations made by the Environment Committee in its second report of Session 1992–93 on the Housing Corporation, HC 466.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering the Select Committee's report and expects to produce a full response shortly after the summer recess.

  Nuclear Waste
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates have been made of the health risks to the United Kingdom population from the proposal by British Nuclear Fuels for substitution of wastes equivalent to quantities of high-level waste.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's views were sought on the likely radiological and environmental impact for the United Kingdom of British Nuclear Fuels' proposals for waste substitution. As I have said in the answer I gave on 28 June to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith),Official Report, columns 387–88, RWMAC has been asked to do further work.

  Water Prices
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the increase in water prices in England in(a) cash and (b) real terms since water privatisation;
  348
  (2) what has been the increase in water prices in England in (a) cash and (b) real terms since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  Between 1979–80 and 1989–90 the average domestic water rate bill increased nationally by 187 per cent. in cash terms—a real terms increase of 45·2 per cent.

  Since privatisation, the weighted average increase in water charges in England in cash terms has been 52·1 per cent.—a real terms increase of 21·2 per cent.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increases in water prices in the areas served by(a) the Mid Kent Water Company and (b) the West Kent Water Company in (i) cash and (ii) real terms since water privatisation.

  Mr. Yeo
  Since privatisation, the increase in water charges in Mid Kent Water Company's area in cash terms has been 55·3 per cent.—a real terms increase of 24·2 per cent. The increase in water charges in West Kent Water Company's area in cash terms has been 84·9 per cent.—a real terms increase of 49·8 per cent.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the guidelines for the current review of local government structure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are always ready to consider whether the guidance which we have issued to the Local Government Commission needs updating or clarifying.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the timetable for implementing local government reorganisation in the first tranche of local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have announced that any new structure for the Isle of Wight would be implemented on 1 April 1995. The timing of implementation in other first tranche areas will depend on the nature of the final recommendations.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the review and reorganisation of local government in Cleveland.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission is currently preparing its final report on the review of Cleveland and Durham, which is due to be submitted by 21 November. The Secretary of State will then consider whether the recommendations should be implemented. The final decision on any changes rests with Parliament.

  Water Quality
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each of the items of EC legislation concerning the cleanliness of water that the United Kingdom is legally bound to implement; and if he will list for each item whether the United Kingdom supported or opposed it at a vote in the EC.

  Mr. Yeo
  With one exception, the directives relating to water quality listed below were adopted by unanimity under the provisions of the treaty of Rome. The titanium
  349
  dioxide directive (92/112/EEC) was adopted by a qualified majority with United Kingdom support. In many, if not all, cases, changes will have been made in negotiation at the request of the United Kingdom.

  Water Directives (July 1993)
  1. Detergents (73/404/EEC of 22 November 1973)

  2. Testing of anionic surfactants (73/405/EEC of 22 November 1973)

  3. Quality of surface water abstracted for drinking (75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975)

  4. Quality of bathing water (76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975)

  5. Discharges of dangerous substances (76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976)

  6. Exchange of information on surface water quality (as amended) (77/795/EEC of 12 December 1977, and 86/574/EEC of 24 November 1986)

  7. Waste from Ti01 industry (78/176/EEC of 20 February 1978)

  8. Quality of fresh waters for fish life (78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978)

  9. Methods of measurement etc, of surface water for drinking (79/869/EEC of 9 October 1979)

  10. Quality of shell fish waters (79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979)

  11. Protection of groundwater (80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979)

  12. Exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (80/777/EEC of 15 July 1980)

  13. Quality of water for human consumption (80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980)

  14. Methods of testing the biodegradability of anionic surfactants (82/243/EEC of 31 March 1982)

  15. Methods of testing the biodegradability of non-ionic surfactants (82/242/EEC of 31 March 1982)

  16. Mercury from the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry (82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982)

  17. On the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities [Seveso] (82/501/EEC of 5 August 1982)

  18. Titanium dioxide monitoring (82/883/EEC of 3 December 1982)

  19. Titanium dioxide (timetable) (83/29/EEC of 24 January 1983)

  20. Limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges (83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983)

  21. Laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983)

  22. Limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges—sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry (84/156/EEC of 8 March 1984)

  23. Limit values and quality objectives for HCH discharges (84/491/EEC of 9 October 1984)

  24. Second amendment of 73/404/EEC—detergents (86/94/ EEC of 10 March 1986)

  25. Use of sewage sludge in agriculture (86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986)

  26. Limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC [CTC, DDT, PCP] (86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986)

  27. Prevention and reduction of environment pollution by asbestos (87/217/EEC of 28 March 1987)

  28. Amending annex II to directive 86/280/EEC: discharges of drains, HCB, HCBD, chloroform (88/347/EEC of 16 June 1988)

  29. Titanium dioxide (harmonisation of programmes)—annuled by decision of the ECJ 11 June 1991 and replaced by 92/112/EEC (89/428/EECf 21 June 1989)

  30. On the freedom of access to information on the environment (90/313/EEC of June 1990)

  31. Amending annex II to directive 86/280/EEC: discharges of EDC, TRI, PER, TCB (90/415/EEC of 27 July 1990)

  32. Concerning urban waste water treatment (91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991)

  33. Concerning the protection of fresh, coastal and marine waters against pollution caused by nitrates from diffuse sources (91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991)

  350

  34. On standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain directives relating to the environment (91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991)

  35. On procedures for harmonising the programmes for the reduction and eventual elimination of pollution caused by waste from the titanium dioxide industry (92/112/EEC of 15 December 1992)

  Companies (Local Authority Interests)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to take powers to regulate companies in which local authorities have interests under part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend will be going out to consultation shortly on proposals designed to implement the provision of part V of the 1989 Act on this subject.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the terms of reference, working methods or personnel of the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission's terms of reference are laid down in the Local Government Act 1992. In carrying out its reviews, the commission must have regard both to the requirements of section 15 of the Act, and of the procedural guidance which we have issued to it. It is otherwise free to determine its own working methods. The commission is responsible for making its own staffing arrangements. We have no current plans to make fresh appointments to the commission.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the French authorities regarding any relaxation of controls on the hunting and trapping of wild birds.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to him earlier today.

  Cornwall (Storm Damage)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide financial assistance to local authorities in Cornwall to compensate them for emergency work undertaken as a result of damage caused by storms and floods during the period 9 to 12 June.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that financial relief under the Bellwin scheme would be justified in this case because of the exceptional nature of the flooding in Cornwall. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has decided, with the consent of the Treasury, to establish a scheme of assistance under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of expenditure relating to damage caused by the storms and floods in Cornwall in June 1993. Grant will be paid to reimburse local authorities for 85 per cent. of eligible costs incurred above threshold. North Cornwall district council had advised the Department that it has incurred expenditure above its threshold. It is expected that grant to that authority is likely to be in the region of £16,000.
  351

  Crown Office Buildings, Edinburgh
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to sell, or otherwise dispose of, the Crown Office building, the Old Royal high school, in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 9 June 1993]: The future use of the Old Royal high school in Edinburgh is being given active consideration by Property Holdings which is in discussion with the Scottish Office on the possibility of its continued use by the Scottish Grand Committee. No decision has yet been taken.

DEFENCE

  Infantry Battalions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future location of the two additional infantry battalions he announced on 3 February,Official Report, column 320.

  Mr. Hanley
  A number of options for providing sufficient accommodation to house the two additional infantry battalions have been examined. I am pleased to announce I have decided that Sir John Moore barracks, Shorncliffe, which would otherwise have been disposed of as a result of the cessation of infantry junior leaders training there, will be retained in the Army estate as one of the two new permanent infantry barracks required.

  Possible locations for a second infantry barracks are still under review.

  Training
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on improving provision for Army special-to-arm and service, and career, training.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) announced on 16 December 1992,Official Report, column 335–36, the principles for further restructuring the training organisation and improving provision for special to arm and service and career training. It is our intention, where possible, that such training will be concentrated in single centres with any further training done at the minimum number of wings. This part of the review is nearly complete and we now need to begin detailed planning.

  We propose that the training of the Royal Armoured Corps should be concentrated at Bovington, although gunnery training would continue to be carried out at Lulworth and Castlemartin. Training of the Royal Artillery would be concentrated at Larkhill, with firing training being carried out, as at present, at the ranges at Manorbier and the Hebrides. Training of the Royal Engineers would be concentrated at Chatham with a wing at Minley and some minor facilities at Chattenden. Training of the Royal Signals would, as outlined on 16 December 1992, be concentrated at Blandford and as a result the operational signals regiment currently located there would transfer to Bramcote and the defence automatic data processing training centre would move in the short term to the Royal College of Military Science at Shrivenham. The transfer of the Royal Signals from
  352
  Catterick would allow the infrantry to concentrate special to arm training there with subsequent career and instructor training being carried out at both Warminster and Brecon.

  Training of the Royal Logistic Corps would be mainly done at Deepcut, with apprentice and catering training at Aldershot. The training of drivers would be concentrated at Leconfield. Training of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers would be concentrated at Arborfield with a wing at Bordon. This would also include the relocation of the School of Aeronautical Engineering from Middle Wallop to Arborfield. The training of Army medical services would be carried out at Mytchett. Further work is in hand on the location of training for the Adjutant Generals Corps and of adventurous training.

  Changes resulting from earlier measures to rationalise Army training at a smaller number of centres, thus reducing overheads, are already under way and we propose that this next phase should begin in early 1994. It is planned that some barracks affected by these proposals would pass to the Field Army, but the training facilities at Harrogate, Ouston, Strensall and Church Crookham and parts of Chattenden, Netheravon and Deepcut would no longer be required. We will be examining the potential for alternative defence uses for these establishments. It is not therefore possible at this stage to say what the detailed implications for civilian staff might be.

  Full consultation with the trade unions on the above proposals will take place in the normal way before final decisions are taken.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research AWE Aldermaston is conducting into methods for decommissioning radioactive plant and buildings on site.

  Mr. Aitken
  AWE has a continuing research and development programme to define and improve techniques and equipment for decommissioning radioactive plant and buildings on site. The work ranges from developing decontamination and size reduction techniques through to applications involving equipment for waste classification.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the toxic chemicals used and discharge into the environment by AWE Aldermaston that appear on the AEC black list and the United Kingdom Government's Red List of toxic chemicals.

  Mr. Aitken
  Of the toxic chemicals included in the black and red lists, AWE Aldermaston discharges into the environment cadmium and its compounds and mercury and its compounds. The amounts discharged are within the limits prescribed by the relevant regulatory authorities using approved waste disposal routes.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to this answer of 25 June,Official Report, columns 307–8, if he will place copies in the Library of the annual revisions of AWE Aldermaston decommissioning and radioactive waste management policies and programmes of work.

  Mr. Aitken
  The documents referred to are confidential management publications and cannot therefore be made available to the Library.
  353
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether AWE Aldermaston has disposed of any waste thought to contain plutonium contaminated material to(a) the British Nuclear Fuels disposal site at Drigg, (b) the Atomic Energy Authority low-level waste pits at Dounreay or (c) the Atomic Energy Authority intermediate-level waste store at Dounreay.

  Mr. Aitken
  Under a management certificate of authority, AWE Aldermaston sends plutonium contaminated, low-level waste in the form of solidified sludge to the disposal site at Drigg. This constitutes approximately 20 gms per annum. No plutonium contaminated waste is sent to the other two sites referred to.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much radioactive waste is at present stored at the former royal dockyards HMS Chatham or HMS Gillingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No radioactive waste is currently stored at the former Chatham dockyard.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research AWE Aldermaston is conducting into(a) the updating of the WE177, Chevaline or Trident and (b) a warhead for a tactical air-to-surface missile.

  Mr. Aitken
  A continuing research programme is maintained at the Atomic Weapons Establishment which is applied to specific warhead programmes as necessary. As regards a warhead for a tactical air-to-surface missile, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 12 November 1992,Official Report, col 882.

  Hunting-BRAE
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role and powers of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution concerning the company Hunting-BRAE in respect of the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

  Mr. Aitken
  HMIP regulates activities at the four AWE sites—Aldermaston, Burghfield, Foulness and Cardiff—in precisely the same manner as it would for any other premises that are subject to relevant legislation, primarily the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It has the power of access to all AWE sites and can take action to require compliance. Its powers include the ability to bring prosecutions against those formally authorised to make discharges and disposals; in the case of AWE this would be Hunting-BRAE.

  The following information has been extracted from the Monthly Weather Report for the latest three years for which complete data are available:

  District

  Wettest mm

  Average mm

  Driest mm

  Days of rain

  Days of snow fall

  Days of snow cover

  1989:

  0

  2,988

  1,452

  544

  250

  40

  12

  1

  1,373

  620

  385

  190

  22

  9

  2

  1,289

  584

  342

  140

  13

  2

  3

  642

  522

  433

  135

  9

  2

  4

  1,659

  639

  522

  140

  10

  3

  5

  902

  644

  450

  130

  5

  1

  6

  2,537

  1,427

  748

  205

  25

  7

  7

  2,353

  1,018

  628

  175

  11

  4

  354

  Red Arrows
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he had with the Dutch defence ministry on its request to the Red Arrow display team to curtail their appearance at an air show in Eindhoven on safety grounds; and what Dutch safety guidelines would have been broken if they had participated.

  Mr. Hanley
  There were no such communications. The invitation for the Red Arrows to display at Eindhoven was accepted as it was understood that the Netherlands authorities were planning to waive some aspects of their regulations on display flying to enable the team to perform their standard display routine. This routine involves a small number of overflights of the spectators at a minimum height of 1,000 feet, but no aerobatic manoeuvres towards or above the crowd. It is understood that it is this aspect of the display routine that does not accord with the Netherlands regulations. The waiver was not granted, so the team withdrew from the event.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans in regard to future nuclear tests.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the response that I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 13 July,Official Report, column 470.

  Weather Conditions
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each region of the United Kingdom the(a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average annual precipitation for each of the last three years, and also show how many days there was precipitation in each region, on how many days snowfall was recorded and on how many days there was snow cover on arable land and land below the 500 ft contour.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Meteorological Office under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr William Ross, dated 19 July 1993:

  The information requested in your Parliamentary Question concerning weather conditions in the United Kingdom is attached.
  355

  District

  Wettest mm

  Average mm

  Driest mm

  Days of rain

  Days of snow fall

  Days of snow cover

  8

  1,843

  878

  614

  155

  5

  2

  9

  1,605

  960

  652

  200

  10

  5

  1990:

  0

  3,307

  1,812

  795

  250

  40

  16

  1

  1,829

  854

  603

  195

  30

  10

  2

  1,797

  682

  414

  150

  17

  5

  3

  598

  464

  367

  130

  12

  1

  4

  1,781

  578

  431

  160

  15

  4

  5

  882

  629

  381

  130

  6

  1

  6

  3,326

  1,817

  958

  225

  15

  8

  7

  2,540

  1,083

  633

  195

  9

  3

  8

  2,147

  912

  609

  160

  6

  2

  9

  1,825

  1,044

  775

  230

  18

  9

  1991

  0

  2,663

  1,278

  501

  220

  25

  15

  1

  1,367

  733

  503

  175

  20

  14

  2

  1,725

  673

  391

  150

  17

  13

  3

  636

  484

  385

  145

  14

  10

  4

  1,590

  564

  394

  155

  13

  12

  5

  891

  643

  486

  145

  9

  8

  6

  2,580

  1,467

  775

  200

  18

  16

  7

  2,276

  996

  472

  170

  15

  6

  8

  1,559

  857

  691

  160

  11

  6

  9

  1,585

  1,012

  670

  205

  18

  10

  Key to Districts:

  0 Scotland North

  1 Scotland East

  2 Scotland East and North East

  3 East Anglia

  4 Midland Counties

  5 England South East and Central South

  6 Scotland West

  7 England North West and Wales North

  8 England South West and Wales South

  9 Northern Ireland

  Notes: Figures given for days of rain, snowfall, etc. are estimates based on figures from a range of stations.

  Precipitation
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much precipitation fell in each month of 1985, 1990, 1991 and 1993 to the latest available date; what is the long-term average for each month; and what was the number of days recorded as having no precipitation in each of these months.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Meteorological Office under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. William Ross, dated 19 July 1993:

  Information on rainfall for Belfast Airport is attached. Further information can be supplied if requested.

  The only place in Northern Ireland for which a complete set of data is readily available is Belfast (Aldergrove) Airport

  Month

  1985

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Monthly Rainfall in mm at Aldergrove

  January

  58·8

  104·3

  88·3

  57·3

  98·2

  February

  30·3

  132·0

  46·4

  61·9

  28·4

  March

  58·8

  38·8

  74·4

  97·2

  52·3

  April

  58·2

  50·6

  81·7

  92·4

  103·3

  May

  87·3

  47·5

  7·5

  32·5

  130·9

  June

  55·8

  117·6

  75·9

  43·2

  76·4

  July

  90·3

  50·3

  72·9

  67·4

  —

  356

  Month

  1985

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  August

  128·4

  91·4

  29·1

  149·9

  September

  131·5

  37·3

  54·1

  71·9

  —

  October

  38·0

  164·7

  106·1

  58·1

  —

  November

  73·8

  73·4

  109·4

  89·7

  —

  December

  72·8

  74·8

  78·3

  68·7

  —

  Monthly Number of Days Without Rain at Aldergrove

  January

  8

  0

  6

  9

  3

  February

  12

  1

  4

  3

  4

  March

  4

  4

  10

  0

  2

  April

  2

  3

  8

  2

  8

  May

  9

  12

  8

  11

  6

  June

  5

  5

  3

  11

  5

  July

  0

  11

  7

  5

  —

  August

  1

  1

  8

  2

  —

  September

  4

  9

  11

  3

  —

  October

  14

  3

  4

  8

  —

  November

  3

  10

  0

  3

  —

  December

  2

  6

  9

  8

  —

  Long-term average monthly rainfall in mm at Aldergrove

  Month

  January

  85·8

  February

  57·8

  March

  68·8

  April

  52·9

  May

  59·9

  June

  62·6

  July

  63·9

  August

  79·8

  September

  84·8

  357

  Month

  October

  87·6

  November

  77·8

  December

  77·8

  Note: The Average has been calculated over the period 1961 to 1990.

  RAF Leeming
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his future plans for RAF Leeming in North Yorkshire.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are three Tornado F3 squadrons, an Air Defence RAF Regiment squadron, an Air Experience Flight and a University Air Squadron at RAF Leeming. As announced, in the 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates "Defending Our Future (CM 2270) the Tornado F3 force will be reorganised into six squadrons, rather than seven as at present. As a result one of the Tornado F3 squadrons (No. 23 Squadron) at RAF Leeming will disband on 1 April 1994.

  There are no current plans for further changes at RAF Leeming.

  Jaguar Aircraft
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 July, if he will set out the numbers and tasks of ground crew associated with deployment of Jaguars to Italy; where in Italy the Jaguars will be based; at what annual cost; which department will meet the cost; under whose operational command(a) the Jaguars and (b) the RN Sea Harriers will fall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  188 ground crew have deployed with the Jaguars to Gioia del Colle. The annual extra costs associated with the deployment of these aircraft are estimated to be £30,000,000, and will be met from defence votes. The Jaguars will be under the operational command of Air Officer Commander-in-Chief Strike Command. The Royal Navy Sea Harriers will be under the operational command of Commander-in-Chief United Kingdom Land Forces. Operational control of both Jaguar and Sea Harrier aircraft involved in close air support operations will be delegated to the appropriate NATO commander.

  Army Air Corps
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the additional works required for occupation by the Army Air Corps of RAF Wattisham, showing separately all those costing over £1 million; which RAF facilities will not be used by the AAC, and associated engineering and support units, and why; what additional works are required for the operation or the support of the two search-and-rescue helicopters; what the total cost of the works will be; how much of the construction to date at Dishforth for the Army Air Corps will be required; what has been the cost of works at Dishforth to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  358

  RD57 Site, Rosyth
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the future of the RD57 site; what would be the cost of reinstating the site if no alternative use can be made of it; and what would be the cost of finishing work at the site to render it safe and useable for another purpose.

  Mr. Aitken
  Options for the future of RD57 remain under consideration. We estimate the cost of reinstating the site to be in the order of £15 million; this was taken into account in the comparative assessment of the nuclear facility proposals. The cost of converting the site to another purpose would depend on the purpose.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what volume and tonnage of material has been excavated from the site of the RD57 facility.

  Mr. Aitken
  The total volume of material excavated from the RD57 site amounted to 185,000 cu m of silt, clay and rock. We do not maintain records of tonnage.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a summary of the costs incurred on the RD57 facility at Rosyth, showing expenditure in each year since the project started.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  0·405

  1986–87

  2·530

  1987–88

  3·900

  1988–89

  4·095

  1989–90

  15·785

  1990–91

  17·896

  1991–92

  25·422

  1992–93

  27·386

  11993–94

  0·507

  23·657

  1 To end of June 1993.

  2 Committed but not yet paid.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cubic metres of concrete have been poured for the development of the RD57 site.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 105,415 cubic metres.

  Army Personnel Centre
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make an announcement about the proposed new Army personnel centre.

  Mr. Hanley
  The consultation period on our proposals for the establishment of an integrated Army personnel centre ended only on 9 July. I have seen a number of delegations about our proposals, including one last week, and a large number of representations and comments have been received. I shall be considering all these representations very carefully indeed. This will take a little time, but I hope to make a decision in the first half of September.

  OSEX 93
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what live ammunition is being used during the OSEX 93 war games manoeuvres in mid-Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  359
  Mr. Hanley
  The Offensive Support Exercise took place in mid-Wales from 12 to 16 July. Attacks against inflatable targets were simulated and therefore no ammunition was used. Sorties were conducted at the MOD ranges at Pembrey Sands where 3 kg practice bombs were used and at Sennybridge where 3 kg practice bombs and 30 mm practice ammunition was fired.

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received regarding low-flying aircraft in the mid-Wales area in each of the last five months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of representations about low-flying training which my Department has received in each of the last five months from addresses in the county of Powys are as follows:

  Month

  Number

  February

  4

  March

  8

  April

  9

  May

  13

  June

  17

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents of low-flying aircraft were recorded by the RAF in the area between Dolgellau and Llandovery in each of the last five months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom low-flying system is divided into 19 low-flying areas for administrative purposes. All military aircraft wishing to fly in the system must first book into each LFA in which they intend to operate. Records are not maintained, however, of the exact route flown.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the number of Nimrod aircraft(a) in each of the three squadrons at RAF Kinloss, (b) in the Operational Conversion Unit at RAF Kinloss, (c) in 51 Squadron at RAF Wyton and (d) in store or in maintenance facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Air Force currently has 33 Nimrod aircraft. At RAF Kinloss there are seven Nimrod MR2 aircraft in each of the three squadrons, three aircraft in the operational conversion unit, and two in-use-reserves. At RAF Wyton there are three Nimrod R1 aircraft. Four Nimrod aircraft are in store.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what report he has received of an incident on Sunday 10 July involving British forces serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina being stopped by middle eastern mujaheddin; how many mujaheddin were involved; what action British forces took; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have received no report of any such incident.
  360
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 720, if he will detail the media reports he is aware of which indicate the presence of (a) Serbian regular forces and (b) Croatian regular forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina;

  (2) what reports he has received from British forces serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina of the sighting of (a) Serbian regular forces and (b) Croatian regular forces operating within the terrority of Bosnia-Herzegovina; on how many occasions there have been sightings of (i) Serbian regular forces and (ii) Croatian regular forces; and what estimates of the size of each of these forces have been made;

  (3) what reports he has received from British forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina of atrocities having been carried out by Muslim forces within the territory of Bosnia.-Herzegovina; and what representations have been made to the Bosnian presidency.

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been a wide variety of media reports. Information gathered by British and other UNPROFOR troops about force composition is passed on to the United Nations. The United Nations Secretary General forwards situation updates to the Security Council. Example copies are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 720, what information he has received from UNPROFOR on the presence of (a) Serbian regular forces and (b) Croatian regular forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina; if he will list what those reports have claimed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of sites of special scientific interest within his Department's estate which will cease to be operational within the next five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is my Department's policy to seek to maximise the return for the taxpayer when disposing of surplus sites. This is normally best achieved through open market competitive sale once the full planning potential of the property has been explored.

  Service Units
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the approximate number of personnel deployed with each of the units listed in Cm. 2270, page 22, table 3.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: The exact number of personnel deployed at any time will depend upon the task being performed by, and the readiness state of, the unit in question. Approximate peacetime personnel establishments, which do not include the supporting and logistic units needed to sustain operational deployments, for the force elements listed are as follows:

  361

  Force element

  Number of personnel

  Aircraft carriers

  1680–1,200

  Destroyers and Frigates

  2163–260

  Amphibious ships

  354–540

  Mine countermeasures vessels

  230–42

  Royal Fleet auxiliary vessels

  240–116

  RM Commandos

  4530–660

  Strategic deterrent submarines

  2124–147

  Nuclear-powered fleet submarines

  2129–137

  Army Air Corps regiments5

  119–309

  Armoured and reconnaissance regiments

  465–470

  Artillery regiments (regular)6

  172–589

  Artillery regiments (TA)

  495–512

  Engineer regiments (regular)7

  39–488

  Engineer regiments (TA)

  17–743

  Infantry battlions (regular)

  193–806

  Infantry regiments (TA/Royal Irish Home Service)

  508–1,156

  Reconnaissance regiments (TA)

  357–470

  Transport, tanker and SAR aircraft

  82,630

  Airborne early warning

  8165

  Canberra PR9

  8103

  Harrier

  8416

  Jaguar

  8446

  Nimrod R & MR

  8551

  Rapier fire units

  8500

  Tornado F3

  8930

  Tornado GR1

  81,455

  1 1,200 when the carrier's Air Group is embarked.

  2 Numbers vary depending on class of vessel.

  3 Excludes any embarked forces.

  4 Includes Comacchio group.

  5 Including sub-units in Northern Ireland.

  6 Includes Kings Troop RHA.

  7 Includes Military Survey, Military Works forces and Command Engineer Squadron.

  8 Figures relate to squadron personnel for each aircraft fleet, but do not include Operational Conversion Unit/Tornado Weapons Conversion Unit personnel.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Machine Tools
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the sales of machine tools in the United Kingdom in(a) 1990 and (b)

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Sales of machine tools in the United Kingdom, estimated from CSO figures for sales by United Kingdom manufacturers minus exports plus imports, were(a) £1,304 million in 1990 and (b) £944 million (provisional estimate) in 1992.

  However these figures include sales of machine tools, parts and associated equipment. The Machine Tools Technologies Association estimates that sales of machine tools alone were (a) £974 million in 1990 and (b) £675 million in 1992.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the reasons for the timing of the publication of the fact that he had called for a review of Warren Spring Laboratory in relation to his announcement of his decision to(a) review his Department's laboratories and (b) close Warren Spring Laboratory.
  362
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have nothing to add to the earlier announcements which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made and to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of competition among environmental technology establishments following the closure of Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I expect competition amongst the many public and private sector environmental technology establishments to remain vigorous.

  Hearing Aid Council
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who may nominate candidates for appointment to the Hearing Aid Council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Anyone may make a nomination who has a genuine involvement whether as a dispenser, as a medical or audiological specialist, or as a hearing aid user. Nominations are also welcome from their representative organisations, relations and advisers.

  Those appointed as trade members must be capable of representing the interests of those registered with the Hearing Aid Council and either be so registered or directors or managers of a registered employer. Those appointed as medical/technical members must have specialised medical knowledge of deafness or audiological technical knowledge and must not be eligible for appointment as trade members. Those appointed as consumer members must be capable of representing the interests of persons with impaired hearing and must not be eligible for appointment as trade or medical/technical members.

  Nomination forms for the 1994 appointments are available from:

  Anne Scrope

  Consumer Affairs Division 3b

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Room 411

  10–18 Victoria Street

  LONDON SW1H ONN

  and should be returned by 26 August 1993.

  Accounts Services Agency
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set his Department's Accounts Services Agency for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I congratulate the chief executive and his staff on the improvements in performance they have made since the agency was established. It is essential that the agency sustains these improvements and builds on them. I have therefore set the agency the following performance targets for 1993–94:

  to recover the full costs from income for customer work:

  to fulfil its operational commitments within a net cash requirements in Vote terms of £90,000 or less;

  to achieve a 4·8 per cent. unit cost reduction over last year based on a mix of services;

  to make 97 per cent. of all payments within three working days of receipt of the authorisation to pay;

  to bank all cheques within 36 hours of receipt by the agency, with at least 75 per cent. of them being banked within eight hours of receipt;

  at the end of each month to ensure that all notified transactions are properly recorded on the Departments

  363
  financial management information system by the start of the fifth working day of the following month; that operating statements are produced and despatched by the start of the sixth working day of the following month.

  In addition, I have set the chief executive of the agency the targets of replying within 10 working days to letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply; and producing auditable commercial-style accounts for the agency for 1993–94.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service became an executive agency of the DTI in March 1990. I am now undertaking a review to consider the scope for improving the way in which the Insolvency Service performs its functions, and achieving better value for money, by making more use of the private sector in the work currently carried out by the Insolvency Service and its official receivers. In particular, the review will look at ways in which official receivers can concentrate more on their important investigatory role by involving the private sector to a larger extent in mechanical processing work in insolvencies.

  I will be asking independent consultants to consider: the extent to which official receivers' functions and tasks could be carried out in the private sector; the extent to which official receivers could withdraw from these functions and tasks and the consequences of such withdrawal; whether a market exists to carry out the work and what are the risks; value for money; how the division of work might be organised; and quality control. A number of consultancy firms have been invited to submit proposals. Once the chosen firm has identified the options I shall decide which, if any, to pursue, and will report to the House on my conclusions.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the report of the elections to the statutory committee of the creditors of BCCI; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My officials have received a copy of Mr. Morris's letter of 23 June 1993 which was sent to all creditors of BCCI and which enclosed his report of the creditors meeting held on 27 May together with a report from Electoral Reform Ballot Services on the election of the liquidation committee.

  Further publication is a matter for the liquidators.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the liquidators of BCCI.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There have been no meetings between my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the joint liquidators of BCCI.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's estimate of the total EC expenditure on aid to the European shipbuilding industry 364
  under the seventh directive in each of the last three years; and what is the United Kingdom's share of this expenditure.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest figures available from the European Community on aid to the European shipbuilding industry relate to 1991 and earlier and are incomplete, as shown in the table.

  1989 (Mecu)

  1990 (Mecu)

  1991 (Mecu)

  Total expenditure on aid to european shipbuilding by EC member states

  1547·7

  21,303·3

  3534·1

  United Kingdom expenditure on aid to shipbuilding

  42·9

  50·5

  47·6

  1 Excluding Italy, Portugal and Greece.

  2 Excluding Greece.

  3 Excluding Italy and Greece.

  Small Businesses
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what help the Government are giving to small firms to recover debts due to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are actively addressing the problem of late payment to small firms. We have initiated a wide range of measures including:

  (a) providing financial support for three trade associations to operate pilot prompt payment initiatives;

  (b) new Government contracting terms have been introduced requiring companies awarded Government contracts to pay their subcontractors promptly, normally within 30 days;

  (c) Government Departments are monitoring the percentage of their bills which are paid within the agreed contract period and we will publish performance;

  (d) promoting improvements to court procedures for debt recovery;

  (e) in his spring Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), announced a reduction in the waiting time for VAT bad debt relief; an increase in the threshold for VAT cash accounting and changes to the VAT penalties and surcharge regime;

  (f) consulting on proposals to require large companies to state in their reports and accounts how quickly they pay;

  (g) distributing the DTI publication: "Making the Cash Flow" which contains advice for small firms on credit management.

  Furthermore, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms has given her personal commitment to take up on their behalf complaints small firms have of experiencing late payment by large companies or public bodies.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study his Department has made of the principle of statutory right to interest on debts due to small firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are very aware of the difficulties faced by small firms who suffer from late payments and has initiated a wide range of measures to help with the problem. My Department has examined information from other countries on the operation of legislation designed to effect prompt payment and keeps in close touch with the view of representative organisations in
  365
  this country. We remain to be convinced that legislation to introduce a statutory right to interest would be effective in combatting late payment.

  We continue to be interested in views on how an effective legislative framework might operate while through action and example working to impress the message of prompt payment to businesses of all sizes.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the cost of the consultants' examination of the Patent Office that is now taking place.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The consultants' contract for the Patent Office study is commercially confidential. It is not, therefore, appropriate to disclose the estimated cost.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the timescale for the work of the consultants on the Patent Office, including the date when the consultants expect to(a) conclude and (b) publish their report.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 20 July 1993, Official Report, column 136, and the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 30 June 1993, Official Report, column 512.

  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will list those groups and individuals in the Patent Office who were offered assistance from consultancies in the current market testing exercise.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Consultancy help was offered to, and accepted by, the in-house reprographics team, which received assistance from a firm of management consultants in formulating its bid.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the arrangements he made for in-house bids for the market testing programme at the Patent Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The terms of reference of the market test were set out in a notice to all staff on 6 November 1992, following consultation with the local trade unions. This drew specific attention to the opportunity for making in-house bids.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which categories of work at the Patent Office are(a) currently being market tested and (b) being considered for future market testing.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The current programme which is nearing completion, having entered the consultation phase, includes reprographics, messenger and post despatch services, file repository, stationery, trade marks data capture and trade marks referencing. Market testing will be applied in due course to other Patent Office work, but no decisions have been taken on the context of next year's programme.

  Japanese Companies (Turnover)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what has been the annual turnover of Japanese companies in the United Kingdom each year since 1983.
  366
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Estimates of turnover of Japanese manufacturing companies based in the United Kingdom for 1983–90 are shown in the table. No reliable information is available for Japanese companies outside the manufacturing sector.

  Total value of sales and work done by Japanese enterprises based in the United Kingdom classified to manufacturing 1983–90

  Value of sales £ million

  1983

  193·0

  1984

  321·6

  1985

  447·8

  1986

  595·5

  1987

  1,040·0

  1988

  1,788·3

  1989

  2,916·3

  1990

  4,631·6

  Source: Report on the Annual Census of Production. PA 1002. Central Statistical Office. Various issues.

  Notes:

  (i) The table refers to enterprises controlled by companies incorporated in Japan.

  (ii) Manufacturing refers to activities in Divisions 2 to 4 of the Standard Industrial Classification.

  (iii) 1990 is the most recent published estimate.

  (iv) All data are expressed in current prices.

  Home Contents Insurance
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has as to what proportion of state pensioners in(a) Great Briatin and (b) York have home contents insurance.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department does not collect data on the take-up of insurance policies. The latest Family Expenditure Survey indicates that 77·3 per cent. of those households in Great Britain whose heads are of pensionable age have household contents insurance. The equivalent figure for Yorkshire and Humberside is 76 per cent. The figure for the city of York cannot be isolated.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he is proposing to hold with foreign customers or Governments regarding the return of waste arising from the lifetime operation of THORP.

  Mr. Eggar
  The arrangements for the return of waste are primarily for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers in accordance with the contracts between them. These are supported by intergovernmental letters exchanged at the appropriate time.

  Environmental Technology Centre
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the reasons for preferring the creation of the National Environmental Technology Centre to the relocation of Warren Spring Laboratory to the Welwyn Garden City site acquired in July 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: The reasons were given in the reply which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 10 June, Official Report, columns 303–4. A copy of the PA report has since been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  367

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firms that have received regional selective assistance in the northern region in each of the last five years have ceased trading; and how many jobs were lost as a consequence.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 12 July 1993, Official Report, columns 346–47. Figures on firms ceasing to trade and jobs lost are not available. However, the number of firms in the Northern region having received RSA and which are known to have become subject to insolvency proceedings, are given below.

  Number of firms

  1988–89

  21

  1989–90

  29

  1990–91

  23

  1991–92

  15

  1992–93

  3

  Note: The firms are included in the year in which grant was last paid.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Secure Training Orders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for implementation of the secure training orders proposal.

  Mr. Howard
  I intend to bring legislative proposals before the House as soon as possible.

  Crime
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives his Department is taking to tackle crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he will be taking to tackle crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are strengthening the powers of the courts to deal with offenders. We are setting up the National Board for Crime Prevention and expanding the safer cities programme. We shall also be issuing shortly a new good practice guide to help local communities develop their own crime prevention strategies.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have for changes in the structure and functions of the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no plans for any change in the function of the Metropolitan police. Our proposals for the Metropolitan police are set out in chapter 11 of the White Paper on police reform, published on 28 June.

  Remand in Custody
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reducing the time spent on remand in custody awaiting trial.
  368
  Mr. Maclean
  The average time spent in custody on remand, from the prisoner's first appearance in the magistrates court to his arraignment before the Crown court, was 125 days in 1992. This compares with 119 days in 1991.

  Policing Decisions (Devolution)
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to devolve responsibility for policing decisions to local level.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We intend to abolish unnecessary central controls on police manpower and capital expenditure. Stronger local police authorities will set clear local objectives. Chief constables will then be free to decide how to deploy the available resources to meet the policing needs of their area.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding lenient sentences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I receive a number of letters on lenient sentences.

  The Attorney-General can now refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal and the courts now have powers to impose longer sentences on violent and sexual offenders.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the measures allowing an appeal against lenient sentencing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what view he has formed of the effectiveness of the power of appeal against lenient sentences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The power for the Attorney-General to refer to the Court of Appeal sentences which he considers to be unduly lenient is both important and necessary. The discerning use of this power has repeatedly demonstrated the wisdom of the Government's decision to introduce it.

  Independent Criminal Cases Review Authority
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Independent Criminal Cases Review Authority to be in place; when he expects it to start dealing with cases; and if this will involve existing prisoners, or only newly convicted people.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are considering urgently and carefully all the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, including those relating to appeals and miscarriages of justice; and will decide in due course what action is needed and in what time scale.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to deal with drink-driving.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The enforcement of the law on drinking and driving is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police.
  369

  Burglary
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority he attaches to bringing forward new measures for dealing with burglary.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Chief officers of police attach a high priority to measures aimed at tackling burglary. The Home Office will continue to encourage police forces to develop effective anti-burglary initiatives and will support the police through its crime prevention training, publicity and research programmes.

  Police Staff Associations (Elected Officers)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will maintain the present arrangements whereby police officers are regarded as being on duty when attending meetings and conferences connected with their duties as elected officers of police staff associations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend will consider whether this facility should continue in the light of comments which he receives in response to recommendation 143 of the report of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the efficacy of current measures to deal with persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 24 June,Official Report, column 255.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about measures he is taking to deal with offenders under the age of 18 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 2 March,Official Report, columns 139–50, in which he announced the Government's intention to provide courts with a new sentence, provisionally entitled a secure training order, to assist them in dealing with persistent juvenile offenders. Further measures are under consideration to bring the necessary legislation before the House as soon as possible.

  Racist Attacks (London)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the policing of racist attacks in London.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The policing of racial attacks in London is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who has made it clear that eliminating racial attacks is one of his priorities. The Government fully support the efforts of the police in London, and throughout the country, to tackle racially motivated crime, and to provide support to the victims of it.
  370

  Derek Bentley
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to give a posthumous pardon to Derek Bentley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the recent judgment of the divisional court and will announce his conclusions shortly.

  Crossbows
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to make it a criminal offence to own a crossbow.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to extend the existing restrictions on the sale and possession of crossbows.

  Bail
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of suspects failed to answer (i) police bail, (ii) bail before magistrates courts and (iii) bail to appear in the Crown court in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is published annually in "Criminal statistics, England and Wales", chapter 8. In 1991, 7 per cent. of persons bailed by the police, 7 per cent. of those bailed by magistrates courts and 9 per cent. of those bailed to appear at the Crown court, failed to appear.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning immigration cases from hon. Members since his appointment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Nearly 1,200 written representations have been received over that period.

  Firearms
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used by offence group for the years 1979, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used, by offence group, for the years 1979, 1990 and 1991 are published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", Table 3.1. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Copies of these publications can be found in the Library.

  Maritime Detention
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy towards the use of maritime detention facilities for category C prisoners; what consideration he has given to the location of such facilities; and if he will make a statement.
  371
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Martime detention facilities are one of the options being considered as part of a Prison Service contingency planning exercise. This exercise is intended to identify options for coping with levels of prisoner population that exceed the available prison accommodation. A number of sites with the necessary docking facilities are being considered, but no final decision has been taken on the feasibility of this option.

  Security Services
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is now his policy on parliamentary accountability of the security services.

  Mr. Howard
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a similar question from him on 24 June,Official Report, column 255.

  Raves
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding illegal raves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following events last year, in particular at Castlemorton Common, Malvern and Newtown, Powys, we have received many representations about the powers which are available to deal with illegal rave parties on land.

  On 31 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Home Secretary announced our proposals to give the police new powers to prevent illegal rave parties on land.

  Welsh Boundary Commission
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce who will be deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Lord Chancellor has appointed the Hon. Sir Malcolm Pill to serve as deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales. This appointment is effective until 31 December 1996.

  European Constituencies Committees
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the membership of the European parliamentary constituencies committees for England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have appointed the following people to serve on the European parliamentary constituencies committees:

  ENGLAND

  Chairman:

  Miss Sheila Cameron, QC

  Members:

  Mr. David Macklin, CBE

  Mr. Michael Lewer, QC

  WALES

  Chairman:

  The Honourable Sir Malcolm Pill

  Members:

  Mr. Peter Davey, CBE

  Mr. Murray McLaggan, JP, DL, MA

  The appointments will be effective until February 1994.
  372

  Fire Precautions
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to implement the recommendation in the Bickerdike Allen report of 1990 that a national network of professional development courses be established in universities and colleges of higher education targeted at the various professionals concerned with fire precautions.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A national core curriculum in fire safety studies by design has been developed by the fire safety studies group which comprises representatives of the concerned professional bodies and Government Departments. The curriculum provides a common body of knowledge from which each profession can take what is needed for its members' development in fire safety studies. The curriculum was formally launched at the Palace of Westminster on 21 June. It has already been adopted as part of the entrance examinations of some of the professional bodies. Courses, up to degree level, based on the curriculum are already running in a number of institutions. These, with others, will form the national network recommended by the Bickerdike Allen report. I have arranged for copies of the national core curriculum in fire safety studies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Prison Facilities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many prisons in England and Wales inmates have not had the opportunity to shower and receive a change of clean kit at least once a week during the last six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated July 1993.

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisons in England and Wales, where in the last six months, inmates have not had the opportunity to shower and receive a change of clean kit, at least once a week.

  Standing Orders require that inmates be given the opportunity of a shower or bath at least once a week and that adequate supplies of clean clothing are supplied. In very many cases baths or showers and changes of clothing are available more frequently than once a week. I regret that detailed information on frequency at individual establishments is not currently held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration Quota Vouchers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting for special quota vouchers in(a) India, (b) east Africa and (c) the rest of the world in (i) May 1992 and (ii) December 1992; when those issued with vouchers on those dates had applied; how many vouchers were issued in (1) India, (2) east Africa and (3) the rest of the world in (A) 1992 and (B) the first quarter of 1993; when those applying now can expect to receive vouchers; and how many applicants there were for vouchers in (v) India, (w) east Africa and (x) the rest of the world in (y) 1992 and (z) the first half of 1993.
  373
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information which is currently available is given in the tables.

  Table 1. Persons applying for a special voucher for entry to the United Kingdom

  Application newly received1

  Vouchers issued

  Applications awaiting a decision at end of

  Country

  1992

  1993 1st quarter

  1992

  1993 1st quarter

  Quarter 2 1992

  Quarter 4 1992

  India

  320

  50

  490

  70

  270

  200

  Kenya

  220

  60

  200

  50

  550

  540

  Tanzania

  20

  2—

  10

  2—

  60

  60

  Malawi

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  —

  Zambia

  20

  2—

  20

  2—

  2—

  10

  Rest of the world

  10

  —

  10

  2—

  —

  2—

  Total

  580

  120

  730

  130

  890

  820

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed. Figures rounded to nearest ten.

  2 Fewer than five.

  Table 2. Waiting times for persons applying for a special voucher

  Months

  Waiting time to main interview for Persons interviewed at end of

  Persons applying at end of

  Country

  Quarter 2 1992

  Quarter 4 1992

  Quarter 1 1993

  1Quarter 1 1993

  India

  4·00

  4·00

  3·00

  3·00

  Kenya

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2·00

  Tanzania

  1·00

  3·00

  1·50

  1·50

  Malawi

  0·25

  0·25

  0·25

  0·25

  Zambia

  1·00

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Rest of the world

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Data relates to expected waiting time.

  2 Data relates to non-priority applicants. Priority applicants—widows with child in United Kingdom, heads of household aged 65 or over and compassionate cases—are interviewed within three months.

  n/a = Not available.

  Immigration Offences
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained under Immigration Act powers for a period of more than two months on completion of a custodial sentence during 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Thirty-nine people who completed a custodial sentence in 1992 were detained for more than two months under deportation powers. This figure does not include those subject to removal as illegal entrants, in relation to whom the information is not readily available. The same caveat should have applied to the replies given to similar questions from the hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Darling) on 14 October 1991, column 21 and 13 July 1992 column 492. I regret that this was not made clear at the time.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the(a) passengers in total and (b) persons treated as illegal entrants who were granted temporary admission/release in 1992 subsequently absconded; and how many (i) later reported voluntarily to the immigration authorities and (ii) were rearrested.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information relates to the number of persons who absconded, either from detention or by failing to respond to the terms of temporary admission/release, and is given in the table. The other information requested is not available.
  374

  Absconders in 1992

  Category of person

  Numbers of persons

  Passengers1

  530

  Illegal entrants

  223

  1 May include some absconders recorded as "illegal entrants"

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for naturalisation made under the provisions of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 were(a) decided, (b) granted, (c) refused and (d) withdrawn, under each class and category of the scheme, in each quarter since January 1992 and in total throughout the existence of the scheme; and how many of these applications were from (i) heads of households or (ii) family members.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information about family members is not available for refusals or withdrawals of applications. The remaining information requested is shown. The equivalent information I gave last year is answer to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 13 July 1992, columns 477–80, omitted grants of citizenship to "other teaching personnel" in the period April-June 1992. I regret this omission, which has been corrected in the following tables.
  375

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  January-March 1992

  General occupation

  Managers and administrators

  430

  12

  26

  418

  Business professionals

  297

  0

  0

  297

  Business and administration associate professionals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Accountants and auditors

  861

  0

  0

  861

  Accounting associate professionals

  309

  0

  0

  309

  Engineers and related professionals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Engineering associated professionals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Information science professionals

  24

  24

  41

  0

  News editors and journalists

  120

  35

  55

  85

  Medical doctors

  505

  57

  128

  448

  Physical & life science

  98

  25

  44

  73

  Nurses and midwives

  885

  527

  967

  358

  Other medical professionals

  120

  0

  0

  120

  Health associated professionals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Legal professionals

  10

  10

  23

  0

  Legal associate professionals

  109

  0

  0

  109

  Teaching professionals

  206

  96

  162

  110

  Educational adminstrators

  232

  73

  143

  159

  Other teaching personnel

  758

  0

  0

  758

  Approved occupations

  Computing equipment controllers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Life science technicians

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Physical science technicians

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Social work professionals

  29

  29

  60

  0

  Statistical assistants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Translators/Interpreters

  3

  3

  7

  0

  Disciplined Services

  Correctional Services Department

  332

  332

  711

  0

  Customs and Excise Service

  59

  59

  121

  0

  Fire Services Department

  386

  386

  869

  0

  Immigration Service

  22

  22

  45

  0

  Operation Department, ICAC

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  31

  31

  82

  0

  Garrison (Army)

  83

  83

  193

  0

  Garrison (Navy)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Entrepreneurs

  25

  25

  48

  0

  Sensitive Service

  309

  290

  535

  19

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  April June 1992

  General occupational

  Managers and administrators

  775

  38

  80

  737

  Business professionals

  775

  315

  459

  460

  Business and administration associated professionals

  2,133

  0

  0

  2,133

  Accountants and auditors

  1,896

  409

  731

  1,487

  Accounting associate professionals

  576

  0

  0

  576

  Engineers and related professionals

  2,900

  0

  0

  2,900

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  1,088

  171

  325

  917

  Engineers associated professionals

  2,894

  63

  121

  2,831

  Information science professionals

  1,778

  834

  986

  944

  News editors and journalists

  207

  15

  19

  192

  Medical doctors

  748

  21

  50

  727

  Physical & life science

  125

  0

  0

  125

  Nurses and midwives

  939

  440

  788

  499

  Other medical professionals

  205

  0

  0

  205

  Health associate professionals

  481

  0

  0

  481

  Legal professionals

  928

  17

  35

  911

  Legal associate professionals

  213

  0

  0

  213

  Teaching professionals

  217

  38

  65

  179

  Educational adminstrators

  326

  0

  0

  326

  376 377

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  Other teaching personnel

  1,247

  108

  197

  1,139

  Approved occupations

  Computing equipment controllers

  9

  0

  0

  49

  Life science technicians

  17

  0

  0

  17

  Physical science technicians

  92

  0

  0

  92

  Social work professionals

  435

  19

  35

  416

  Statistical assistants

  76

  0

  0

  76

  Translators/Interpreters

  214

  0

  0

  214

  Disciplined Services

  Correctional Services Department

  322

  246

  482

  76

  Customs and Excise Service

  126

  22

  44

  104

  Fire Services Department

  442

  174

  429

  268

  Immigration Service

  588

  74

  133

  514

  Operation Department, ICAC

  105

  0

  0

  105

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  402

  402

  906

  0

  Garrison (Army)

  471

  31

  85

  440

  Garrison (Navy)

  36

  0

  0

  36

  Entrepreneurs

  42

  8

  9

  34

  Sensitive Service

  92

  92

  166

  0

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  July-September 1992

  General occupational

  Managers and administrators

  1,617

  1,600

  2,780

  17

  Business professionals

  112

  110

  151

  2

  Business and administration associated professionals

  324

  308

  557

  16

  Accountants and auditors

  219

  216

  401

  3

  Accounting associate professionals

  50

  49

  81

  1

  Engineers and related professionals

  203

  188

  407

  15

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  144

  141

  227

  3

  Engineering associate professionals

  152

  148

  317

  4

  Information science professionals

  144

  138

  175

  6

  News editors and journalists

  4

  2

  3

  2

  Medical doctors

  39

  37

  31

  2

  Physical & life science

  4

  4

  5

  0

  Nurses and midwives

  79

  76

  135

  3

  Other medical professionals

  44

  43

  61

  1

  Health associate professionals

  41

  41

  90

  0

  Legal professionals

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Legal associate professionals

  14

  13

  25

  1

  Teaching professionals

  38

  36

  62

  2

  Educational administrators

  26

  25

  48

  1

  Other teaching personnel

  276

  264

  522

  12

  Approved occupations

  Computing equipment controllers

  46

  45

  96

  1

  Life science technicians

  19

  18

  31

  1

  Physical science technicians

  11

  11

  22

  0

  Social work professionals

  18

  18

  36

  0

  Statistical assistants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Translators/Interpreters

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Disciplined Services

  Correctional Services Department

  83

  80

  180

  3

  Customs and Excise Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fire Services Department

  36

  34

  55

  2

  Immigration Service

  162

  161

  260

  1

  Operation Department, ICAC

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  1,453

  1,453

  2,877

  0

  Garrison (Army)

  11

  11

  33

  0

  Garrison (Navy)

  8

  8

  12

  0

  378 379

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  Entrepreneurs

  19

  19

  18

  0

  Sensitive Service

  341

  197

  333

  144

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  October-December 1992

  General occupational

  Managers and administrators

  2,309

  2,227

  3,115

  82

  Business professionals

  121

  119

  105

  2

  Business and administration associate professionals

  738

  725

  1,128

  13

  Accountants and auditors

  114

  112

  163

  2

  Accounting associate professionals

  46

  44

  68

  2

  Engineers and related professionals

  510

  504

  1,019

  6

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  20

  18

  42

  2

  Engineering associate professionals

  213

  211

  450

  2

  Information science professionals

  218

  213

  158

  5

  News editors and journalists

  27

  25

  35

  2

  Medical doctors

  29

  29

  53

  0

  Physical and life science

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Nurses and midwives

  105

  103

  200

  2

  Other medical professionals

  51

  50

  87

  1

  Health associate professionals

  177

  177

  355

  0

  Legal professionals

  40

  30

  46

  10

  Legal associate professionals

  24

  23

  31

  1

  Teaching professionals

  49

  48

  80

  1

  Educational administrators

  35

  33

  82

  2

  Other teaching personnel

  351

  351

  638

  0

  Approved occupations

  Computing equipment controllers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Life science technicians

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Physical science technicians

  6

  6

  12

  0

  Social work professionals

  7

  7

  16

  0

  Statistical assistants

  6

  6

  12

  0

  Translators/Interpreters

  7

  4

  6

  3

  Disciplined services

  Correctional Services Department

  105

  104

  172

  1

  Customs and Excise Service

  73

  73

  144

  0

  Fire Services Department

  131

  131

  235

  0

  Immigration Service

  136

  135

  209

  1

  Operational Department, ICAC

  3

  3

  11

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  7

  7

  15

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  1,071

  1,053

  1,571

  18

  Garrison (Army)

  9

  0

  0

  9

  Garrison (Navy)

  17

  13

  31

  4

  Entrepreneurs

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Sensitive Service

  82

  77

  137

  5

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependants

  January-March 1993

  General occupation

  Managers and administrators

  2,603

  2,527

  3,433

  76

  Business professional

  150

  150

  157

  0

  Business and administration associate professionals

  850

  749

  955

  101

  Accountants and auditors

  150

  148

  188

  2

  Accounting associate professionals

  77

  77

  122

  0

  Engineers and related professionals

  400

  399

  733

  1

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  57

  57

  104

  0

  Engineer associate professionals

  185

  185

  387

  0

  Information science professionals

  150

  141

  98

  9

  380 381

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependants

  News editors and journalists

  3

  3

  6

  0

  Medical doctors

  2

  2

  6

  0

  Physical & life science

  4

  4

  6

  0

  Nurses and midwives

  30

  30

  70

  0

  Other medical professionals

  23

  22

  42

  1

  Health associate professionals

  116

  116

  195

  0

  Legal professionals

  8

  8

  9

  0

  Legal associate professionals

  20

  20

  27

  0

  Teaching professionals

  12

  11

  21

  1

  Educational administrators

  14

  14

  24

  0

  Other teaching personnel

  439

  434

  815

  5

  Approved occupations

  Computing equipment controllers

  61

  52

  70

  9

  Life science technicians

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Physical science technicians

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Social work professionals

  9

  8

  21

  1

  Statistical assistants

  6

  5

  6

  1

  Translators/Interpreters

  8

  8

  9

  0

  Disciplined Services

  Correctional Services Department

  17

  17

  36

  0

  Customs and Excise Service

  21

  21

  51

  0

  Fire Services Department

  35

  35

  61

  0

  Immigration Service

  18

  18

  38

  0

  Operational Department, ICAC

  11

  11

  28

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  133

  126

  233

  7

  Garrison (Army)

  19

  18

  39

  1

  Garrison (Navy)

  20

  16

  41

  4

  Entrepreneurs

  59

  50

  78

  9

  Sensitive Service

  146

  141

  240

  5

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  April—June 1993

  General occupation

  Managers and administrators

  2,683

  2,659

  3,983

  24

  Business professional

  103

  96

  101

  7

  Business and administration associated professionals

  969

  945

  1,001

  24

  Accountants and auditors

  120

  112

  169

  8

  Accounting associate professionals

  60

  60

  90

  0

  Engineers and related professionals

  421

  408

  657

  13

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  25

  16

  35

  9

  Engineering associate professionals

  199

  198

  404

  1

  Information science professionals

  222

  215

  188

  7

  News editors and journalists

  12

  0

  4

  12

  Medical doctors

  8

  5

  34

  3

  Physical & life science

  3

  2

  5

  1

  Nurses and midwives

  66

  66

  149

  0

  Other medical professionals

  7

  5

  12

  2

  Health associate professionals

  94

  93

  134

  1

  Legal professionals

  11

  4

  21

  7

  Legal associate professionals

  11

  11

  15

  0

  Teaching professionals

  28

  26

  51

  2

  Educational adminstrators

  14

  14

  23

  0

  Other teaching personnel

  505

  504

  878

  1

  Approved occupations

  Computing equipment controllers

  33

  33

  27

  0

  Life science technicians

  7

  7

  16

  0

  Physical science technicians

  5

  5

  11

  0

  Social work professionals

  19

  18

  34

  1

  Statistical assistants

  2

  2

  9

  0

  Translators/Interpreters

  13

  4

  6

  9

  Disciplined Services

  Correctional Services Department

  9

  9

  33

  0

  382 383

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  Customs and Excise Service

  13

  13

  40

  0

  Fire Services Department

  28

  28

  80

  0

  Immigration Service

  17

  16

  36

  1

  Operation Department, ICAC

  5

  5

  17

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  28

  18

  89

  10

  Garrison (Army)

  6

  6

  20

  0

  Garrison (Navy)

  2

  2

  9

  0

  Entrepreneurs

  15

  15

  22

  0

  Sensitive Service

  64

  50

  119

  14

  Class

  Decided Principal beneficiaries

  Granted

  Refused Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  Cumulative total up to 30 June 1993

  General occupational

  Managers and administrators

  10,455

  9,101

  13,500

  1,354

  Business professionals

  1,558

  790

  973

  768

  Business and administration associate professionals

  5,014

  2,727

  3,641

  2,287

  Accountants and auditors

  3,360

  997

  1,652

  2,363

  Accounting associate professionals

  1,118

  230

  361

  888

  Engineers and related professionals

  4,434

  1,499

  2,816

  2,935

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  1,334

  403

  733

  931

  Engineering associate professionals

  3,643

  805

  1,679

  2,838

  Information science professionals

  2,536

  1,565

  1,646

  971

  News editors and journalists

  431

  138

  210

  293

  Medical doctors

  1,605

  425

  938

  1,180

  Physical & life science

  235

  36

  61

  199

  Nurses and midwives

  2,104

  1,242

  2,309

  862

  Other medical professionals

  450

  120

  202

  330

  Health associate professionals

  909

  427

  774

  482

  Legal professionals

  1,108

  178

  311

  930

  Legal associate professionals

  391

  67

  98

  324

  Teaching professionals

  593

  298

  492

  295

  Educational administrators

  671

  183

  366

  488

  Other teaching personnel

  3,576

  1,661

  3,050

  1,915

  Approved occupations

  Computing equipment controllers

  189

  130

  193

  59

  Life science technicians

  43

  25

  47

  18

  Physical science technicians

  114

  22

  45

  92

  Social work professionals

  517

  99

  202

  418

  Statistical assistants

  124

  47

  92

  77

  Translators/Interpreters

  266

  40

  68

  226

  Disciplined Services

  Correctional Services Department

  868

  788

  1,614

  80

  Customs and Excise Service

  493

  389

  810

  104

  Fire Services Department

  1,210

  940

  2,058

  270

  Immigration Service

  943

  426

  721

  517

  Operation Department, ICAC

  181

  76

  184

  105

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  13

  10

  22

  3

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  3,118

  3,083

  5,758

  35

  Garrison (Army)

  599

  149

  370

  450

  Garrison (Navy)

  83

  39

  93

  44

  Entrepreneurs

  193

  143

  199

  45

  Sensitive Service

  2,258

  2,071

  3,817

  187

  Applications withdrawn up to 30 June 1993

  Class

  Principal beneficiaries

  General occupational

  Managers and administrators

  421

  Business professionals

  29

  384

  Class

  Principal beneficiaries

  Business and administration associate professionals

  137

  Accountants and auditors

  38

  Accounting associate professionals

  10

  Engineers and related professionals

  71

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  10

  385

  Class

  Principal beneficiaries

  Engineering associate professionals

  49

  Information science professionals

  102

  News editors and journalists

  9

  Medical doctors

  10

  Physical and life science

  1

  Nurses and midwives

  53

  Other medical professionals

  7

  Health associate professionals

  28

  Legal professionals

  1

  Legal associate professionals

  3

  Teaching professionals

  15

  Educational administrators

  10

  Other teaching personnel

  98

  Approved occupations

  Computing equipment controllers

  8

  Life science technicians

  0

  Physical science technicians

  1

  Social work professionals

  2

  Statistical assistants

  4

  Translators-Interpreters

  4

  Disciplined Services

  Correctional Services Department

  25

  Customs and Excise Service

  4

  Fire Services Department

  30

  Immigration Service

  8

  Operation Department, ICAC

  1

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  0

  DNA tests on children under the Government scheme, results received and outcomes 1991–92

  Number of children

  Country/post where application made

  Number of tests carried out

  Tests offered but not taken

  Number awaiting results at end of period

  Number of results received

  Related as claimed to both parents

  Outcomes Related as claimed to one parent but not other

  Not related as claimed to either parent

  1992

  Indian sub-continent1

  Bangladesh (Dhaka)

  1,043

  8

  465

  889

  741

  64

  84

  Pakistan (Islamabad, Karachi)

  2578

  98

  389

  429

  348

  49

  32

  India (Bombay, New Delhi)

  19

  1

  38

  9

  9

  —

  —

  Outside of Indian sub-continent

  Ethiopia (Addis Ababa)

  4

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Ghana (Accra)

  18

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Nigeria (Lagos)

  20

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Philippines (Manilla)

  25

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  United Arab Emirates (Dubai)

  4

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Yemen (Sana'a)

  2

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Zambia (Lusaka)

  3

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1993 Quarter 1

  Indian sub-continent1

  Bangladeshi (Dhaka)

  253

  4

  435

  283

  249

  11

  23

  Pakistan (Islamabad, Karachi)

  2151

  4

  426

  110

  97

  8

  5

  India (Bombay, New Delhi)

  6

  —

  41

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Outside of Indian sub-continent3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Four tests were carried out in Calcutta in 1992. There have been no tests in Madras.

  2 Statistics for tests in Pakistan are mainly for Islamabad: There were six tests carried out in Karachi in 1992 and a further four tests there in the first quarter of 1993.

  3 There were no DNA tests carried out outside the ISC in the first quarter of 1993.

  .. not available.

  — nil.

  Working Holidaymakers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for variation of grant of leave to remain as working holidaymakers have been
  386

  Class

  Principal beneficiaries

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  94

  Garrison (Army)

  6

  Garrison (Navy)

  2

  Entrepreneurs

  4

  Sensitive Service

  28

  Immigration (DNA Tests)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many DNA tests to prove a family relationship for immigration purposes have been carried out under the Home Office-funded scheme during(a) 1992 and (b) the first quarter of 1993, listed by country of origin; what was the average waiting period for the test and for its results; and in how many of those tests the family relationships were proved to be as claimed by the applicants.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information for 1992 and the first quarter 1993 is given in the table.

  The average waiting time from the taking of a blood sample to a decision being made on the result of a DNA test is six to eight weeks.

  (a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused in relation to nationals of (i) India, (ii) Bangladesh, (iii) Pakistan, (iv) Australia, (v) Canada, (vi) Ghana, (vii) Nigeria, (viii) Malaysia and (ix) in total, during 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is given in the table.
  387

  Working holidaymaker variation of leave decisions, excluding dependants

  1992

  1993 Quarter 1

  Citizens of

  Grants

  Refusals

  Grants

  Refusals

  All countries

  11,410

  790

  2,600

  230

  of which:

  India

  280

  30

  70

  10

  Bangladesh

  140

  10

  40

  1—

  Pakistan

  540

  50

  110

  10

  Australia

  2,120

  20

  500

  10

  Canada

  270

  1—

  50

  1—

  Ghana

  1,140

  90

  220

  20

  Nigeria

  1,650

  280

  240

  60

  Malaysia

  750

  40

  140

  10

  1— Five or fewer.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance as working holidaymakers have been(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused in (i) India, (ii) Bangladesh, (iii) Pakistan, (iv) Australia, (v) Canada, (vi) Ghana, (vii) Nigeria and (viii) Malaysia, during 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Prisoners (Restraints)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of times that restraints have been used on inmates during the 12 months from 1 July 1992, in each prison in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from P. Drew to Mr. Tom Cox, dated July 1993:

  Restraints used in Prison Service Establishments

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your Question about the number of times that restraints have been used on inmates during the 12 months from 1 July 1992 in each Prison Service establishment in England and Wales.

  The number of applications of restraints under Rule 46 of the Prison Rules 1964 and Rule 49 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 1988 are given in the table.

  Restraints1 applied to violent or refractory inmates of Prison Service establishments in England and Wales: by establishment, July 1992-July 1993

  Establishment and type

  Number of applications1

  Local prisons/remand centres

  Belmarsh

  4

  Birmingham

  2

  Bristol

  1

  Brixton

  19

  Bullingdon

  1

  Canterbury

  1

  Chelmsford

  1

  Elmley

  3

  Fletham

  18

  Gloucester

  1

  Highdown

  1

  Highpoint

  3

  Holme House

  3

  Hull

  4

  Leicester

  1

  Lewes

  1

  Lincoln

  3

  Liverpool

  6

  Pentonville

  18

  388

  Establishment and type

  Number of applications2

  Preston

  2

  Reading

  2

  Rochester

  5

  Shrewsbury

  3

  Woodhill

  5

  Wormwood Scrubs

  10

  Training Prisons

  Acklington

  1

  Albany

  2

  Camp Hill

  2

  Down view

  1

  Frankland

  4

  Full Sutton

  28

  Garth

  9

  Long Lartin

  2

  Maidstone

  3

  Nottingham

  2

  Stafford

  1

  Standford Hill

  1

  Swaleside

  3

  Wakefield

  2

  Wayland

  2

  Wellingborough

  1

  Whitemoor

  6

  Closed Young Offender Prisons

  Aylesbury

  1

  Castington

  2

  Deerbolt

  1

  Onley

  2

  All establishments

  194

  1 Loose canvas jacket, body belt, handcuffs, ankle straps and leather wrist straps.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Vagrancy Act
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Immigration (Medical Examinations)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people during 1992 and the first quarter of 1993 were(a) required to undergo a medical examination and (b) refused entry clearance abroad, in which countries, for (i) settlement and (ii) other purposes on medical grounds; and what are the most common medical grounds for refusal.
  389
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration (Extension Refusal)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) husbands, (b) wives and (c) dependent children have been refused (i) extension of stay and (ii) settlement in the United Kingdom on the

  Refusals1, on grounds of maintenance and accommodation, of after-entry applications by husbands and wives (numbers of persons)

  Refusals to grant probationary year on grounds of:

  Accommodation

  Maintenance

  Maintenance and accommodation

  Refusals of settlement after probationary year2

  1992

  Quarter 1

  Husbands

  1

  —

  —

  8

  Wives

  1

  1

  1

  12

  Quarter 2

  Husbands

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Wives

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Quarter 3

  Husbands

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Wives

  —

  3

  1

  13

  Quarter 4

  Husbands

  —

  1

  3

  12

  Wives

  1

  2

  2

  12

  1993

  Quarter 1

  Husbands

  —

  1

  —

  14

  Wives

  —

  1

  —

  17

  1 Excluding dependents.

  2 Refusals of settlement after probationary year on general considerations, including recourse to public funds.

  Prison Governors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks are made by his Department to ensure that governor grades in prisons in England and Wales spend time within wings and are regularly available to be seen by inmates.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated July 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about checks made by his Department to ensure that governor grades in prisons in England and Wales spend time within wings and are regularly available to be seen by inmates.

  Governor grades are expected to maintain a regular presence on prison wings to provide access for prisoners in the

  Fatal and serious assaults on Police by Sex of Victim 1984 to 1992

  Year

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Sex

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  Lewisham

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious Injury

  0

  0

  3

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1—

  1—

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  0

  3

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1—

  1—

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  390
  grounds that he is not satisfied that they can be maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds, in each quarter since January 1992, and in total.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information relating to after entry cases is given in the table. Information on dependent children is not readily available.

  exercise of their management and supervisory role. There is no set period of time during which governors are obliged to be present on the wings, and their attendance will depend upon day to day circumstances and the priorities at the time. In many prisons, though, a governor will be based in an office on each wing and in all prisons a governor grade is available usually on a daily basis, to hear applications from prisoners.

  The way in which governors carry out their duties is monitored in a number of ways: their accessibility to prisoners will be one of the many aspects which area managers will seek to cover during their frequent visits to establishments.

  Mrs. Bridgit Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female, Metropolitan police officers have suffered (i) violent injury and (ii) death while performing their professional duties, for each year from 1980 to 1992; and how many in each case were stationed in Lewisham.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is readily available from 1984 and is contained in the table.
  391

  Year

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Sex

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  Metropolitan Police District

  Fatal

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Serious injury

  47

  1

  77

  2

  73

  3

  46

  5

  67

  5

  1—

  1—

  46

  4

  86

  8

  64

  5

  Total

  47

  2

  78

  2

  73

  3

  47

  5

  67

  5

  1—

  1—

  47

  4

  89

  8

  64

  5

  1 Not currently available

  Figures prior to 1991 include attacks on prison officials etc. by prisoner in custody.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what third countries are expected to participate in meetings of common interest referred to at item 10 of the recent report of the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No decisions have yet been made on participation by third countries.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the detailed analysis of the use by member states of terms to express definite concepts of asylum statistics referred to in the recent report of the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the funding implications for the Government of participation in the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None, apart from travelling and subsistence allowances.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the documents on compilation of texts on European asylum practice, the schedule for the purpose of an improved oral exchange of data at the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum meetings, the principles for the dissemination of information from CIREA, and reports on the context of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees database which are referred to in the recent report of the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I am placing in the Library copies of the compilation of texts on European asylum practice and the schedule for the purpose of an improved oral exchange of data. The other material requested has not been made public.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library all joint reports from the local diplomatic representations of the European countries referred to at item 6 of the recent report of the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many passengers seeking political asylum in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993 to the nearest available date were granted temporary admission;
  392
  (2) if he will provide a breakdown by nationality of the number of people seeking political asylum who were detained under Immigration Act powers in 1992 and 1993 to the latest convenient date in (a) prison department establishments and (b) immigration detention accommodation, for (i) under a week, (ii) one to four weeks, (iii) one month to six months, (iv) six months to a year and (v) over a year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested on temporary admission is not available centrally.

  The information on detention is not available in the form requested, but the tables provide relevant information on people seeking asylum who, on 19 July 1993, had been detained for seven days or more.

  Asylum seekers1 detained as at 19 July 1993 by length and place of detention

  Prison detention

  IS detention

  Total

  Asylum seekers detained for one to four weeks

  Algeria

  3

  —

  3

  Afghanistan

  —

  1

  1

  Angola

  —

  1

  1

  Columbia

  1

  3

  4

  Ecuador

  1

  —

  1

  Ethiopia

  —

  1

  1

  Ghana

  2

  6

  8

  India

  9

  3

  12

  Iran

  3

  —

  3

  Kenya

  —

  1

  1

  Liberia

  1

  —

  1

  Nigeria

  1

  7

  8

  Pakistan

  2

  1

  3

  Romania

  4

  —

  4

  Sierra Leonne

  1

  —

  1

  Somalia

  —

  1

  1

  Sri Lanka

  —

  1

  1

  Tanzania

  —

  1

  1

  Turkey

  1

  —

  1

  Uganda

  —

  3

  3

  Zaire

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  29

  31

  60

  Asylum seekers detained for one to six months

  Algeria

  11

  5

  16

  Angola

  4

  7

  11

  Bangladesh

  1

  1

  2

  Cameroon

  —

  1

  1

  China

  4

  —

  4

  Columbia

  —

  5

  5

  Congo

  —

  1

  1

  Egypt

  1

  1

  2

  Gambia

  —

  1

  1

  Ghanaian

  6

  11

  17

  India

  50

  11

  61

  Iran

  1

  —

  1

  Iraq

  1

  —

  1

  Ivory Coast

  —

  5

  5

  Kenya

  3

  3

  Lebanon

  1

  1

  2

  Liberia

  —

  1

  1

  Libya

  1

  —

  1

  Malawi

  —

  1

  1

  393

  Prison detention

  IS detention

  Total

  Morocco

  2

  —

  2

  Niger

  —

  1

  1

  Nigeria

  9

  5

  14

  Pakistan

  3

  3

  6

  Peru

  1

  —

  1

  Somali

  —

  1

  1

  Romania

  6

  1

  7

  Sierra Leonne

  1

  7

  8

  Sudan

  1

  —

  1

  Tanzania

  1

  2

  3

  Tunisia

  —

  1

  1

  Turkey

  7

  2

  9

  Uganda

  1

  2

  3

  Zaire

  11

  12

  23

  Nationality doubtful

  1

  1

  2

  Total

  125

  93

  218

  Asylum seekers detained for six to 12 months

  Algeria

  1

  2

  3

  Angola

  —

  1

  1

  Columbia

  1

  —

  1

  Egypt

  —

  1

  1

  Ghana

  1

  3

  4

  India

  5

  6

  11

  Lebanon

  1

  —

  1

  Nigeria

  3

  2

  5

  Pakistan

  —

  2

  2

  Sierra Leonne

  2

  —

  2

  South Africa

  1

  —

  1

  Sri Lanka

  1

  —

  1

  Tanzania

  —

  1

  1

  Zaire

  2

  1

  3

  Total

  18

  19

  37

  Asylum seekers detained for more than one year

  India

  1

  —

  1

  Zaire

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  2

  —

  2

  Total asylum seekers detained as at 19 July 1993

  Total

  174

  143

  317

  1 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in schedule 2 or 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the application being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports and those detained in the course of after-entry enforcement work or prior to deportation or removal as an illegal entrant.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum is funded.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no specific funding for CIREA. Its activities are supported by a small number of officials in the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Communities, who also have other duties, and accommodation is provided within the offices of the Council.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Claimants (Savings)
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what interest rate is assumed by his Department when calculating income from claimants's for social security benefits.
  394
  Mr. Burt
  None. In all the income-related benefits, capital up to £3,000 is ignored. Deductions from benefit of £1 a week are made for each £250, or part of £250, of capital between £3,000 and the upper capital limit for the particular benefit. This formula does not imply any particular rate of investment. It is designed to ensure that help is targeted on those who need it most, while not denying benefit to those with only a moderate amount of capital. The rules are kept under review, but we have no plans for change.

  Dementia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to secure statutory protection of pension rights for those developing dementia while at work.

  Mr. Hague
  National insurance contribution credits are awarded to those submitting evidence of incapacity to safeguard their entitlement to the basic state pension. Additionally, members of occupational pension schemes who leave with at least two years pensionable service already benefit from the statutory right to a preserved pension. Those with less than two years pensionable service in a scheme which is contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme can be reinstated in SERPS for that period. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers have been in receipt of invalid care allowance in Wales in each year since 1986; and what percentage of total carers within Wales have been successful claimants in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund (Hospital Visit Grants)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made by parents for social fund grants towards the cost of visiting children in hospital to each social fund office in Wales in the latest year for which information is available; how many grants and loans were made; and what was the average level of grants and loans.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of invalidity allowance in the Seaham and Peterlee areas; and what were the numbers of recipients in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  395

  Boarder's Premium
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reintroduce boarder's premium for people currently housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 21 July at col.205.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents there are in Darlington; and how many and what proportion of income support claimants are lone parents in Darlington.

  Mr. Burt
  A provisional estimate of the number of lone parent families in the local government district of Darlington in 1991 is 3000.1

  Data on the number of lone parent families in receipt of income support in individual locations are not available. However, the total number of lone parents on income support in Great Britain in 1992 was 985,0002, representing 19 per cent. of all income support claimants.

  1 1991 Population Census, provisional estimate.

  2 1992 Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  The definition of lone parents used excludes the temporarily separated.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of single parents had social security payments as their main source of income in(a) 1979 and (b) 1991 in (i) Strathclyde and (ii) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the

  Thousands

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Great Britain

  (a) Total number of lone parents, provisional 1991

  1046

  130

  67

  1240

  (b) Total number of lone parents on income support, 1992

  823

  106

  57

  985

  (c) Proportion of IS claimants who are Lone Parents per cent. 1992

  19

  20

  20

  19

  Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source: (a) 1991 Population Census, provisional estimates.

  (b) and (c) 1992 Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry. The definition of lone parents used excludes the temporarily separated.

  Benefits
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the regional expenditure on(a) retirement pensions, (b) sickness and invalidity benefits, (c) housing benefits, (d) unemployment benefit, (e) family credit, (f) income support, (g) social fund and (h) child benefit as (i) a total and (ii) per head for each of the last five years for which figures are avaialble.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of unclaimed(a) income support, (b) housing benefit, (c) family credit and (d) invalidity benefit, giving the estimated number of
  396
  Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 21 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many and what percentage of single parents had social security payments as their main source of income in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991 in (i) Strathclyde and (ii) Scotland as a whole.

  The complete range of information requested is not available as statistics that reflect the number of single parents in receipt of each Social Security benefit are not routinely collected. It is also likely that many of the relevant records will have been routinely destroyed since 1979.

  Below I have given the number of single parents in Scotland who were in receipt of Supplementary Benefit in 1979 and Income Support in 1991.

  This information is obtained from an annual statistical sampling exercise. It is not possible to provide figures separately for Strathclyde.

  (1) Single parents in Scotland in receipt of Supplementary Benefit at November 1979–34,000

  (2) Single parents in Scotland in receipt of Income Support at May 1991–102,000

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is(a) the number of lone parents, (b) the number of income support claimants who are lone parents and (c) the proportion of income support claimants who are lone parents in each region.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table.

  non-claimants involved; and the proportion of each benefit entitlement unclaimed, for each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  Estimates of the take-up of income support, family credit and the new unified housing benefit were published in "Income Related Benefit Estimates of Take-up in 1989" in January this year. Take-up estimates for the income-related benefits that were available before the 1988 benefit reforms are for 1985 and 1987 and are provided in Social Security Statistics 1990 (Table 48) and Social Security Statistics 1991 (Table H.5) respectively. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Information for invalidity benefit is not available.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect steepening the housing benefit taper from 65 per cent. to 80 per cent. would have on the proportion of income retained per £1 a week increase in
  397
  gross earnings for (a) a lone parent earning £136 per week, (b) a single adult earning £132 per week and (c) a two adult family earning £196 per week, paying an average weekly rent of £48 per week.

  Mr. Burt
  Such an increase would have the effect of increasing the proportion of each £1 a week increase in gross earnings retained from 23p to 66p—that is, £1 less tax and national insurance contributions—in cases(b) and (c) but would take people in these circumstances out of housing benefit entitlement. For case (a) housing benefit entitlement would be retained and the proportion of income retained per £1 a week increase in gross earnings would reduce from 7p to 4p.

  Note: Figures provided from tax benefit model 1993. The benefit rates are as at April 1993. Assumptions are for (a) lone parent with one child; (b) single adult over age 25; (c) two adult family with two children aged 4 and 6.

  Bus Passes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has now concluded discussions with Walsall council over the bus pass concession for blind people in receipt of the disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  On 8 July, the council wrote to the Department with its further observations. The Department is considering the points made and remains in discussion with the council.

  Mortgage Costs
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being taken against people in Wales receiving benefit to cover their mortgage costs who failed to inform his Department when their payments dropped; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of social security is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the 398
  Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Rod Richards, dated 21 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking what measures are being taken against people in Wales receiving benefit to cover their mortgage costs who failed to inform his Department when their payments dropped; and if he will make a statement.

  I acknowledge that administrative difficulties have arisen for some customers who have chosen to obtain a mortgage which is reviewed annually. Such 'annual review' mortgages are arranged by the mortgage lender so that, although the interest being charged to the borrower's account may change in the course of the year, the repayments that the borrower is required to make are not adjusted to reflect this until the end of the lender's accounting year.

  Although Income Support (IS) may include an amount to cover mortgage interest payments, it is calculated with reference to the rate of mortgage interest being charged to the customer's loan account.

  Since mortgage interest payments on 'annual review' mortgages are not calculated on this basis there can, in certain circumstances, be a difference between the amount of IS paid compared with what the lender would expect to receive under the annual review arrangement. The Benefits Agency has held meeting with the Council of Mortgage Lenders about this difficulty. In the meantime, mortgage lenders will normally look sympathetically at requests from customers to be taken off the annual review arrangement. My advice to customers who find themselves in difficulty would be to immediately contact their mortgage lender to discuss the situation.

  However, it remains the responsibility of the customer to inform the Benefits Agency of any changes in their circumstances. This includes any change in the rate of interest charged to their mortgage account.

  A customer residing in any part of Great Britain, who fails to inform the Department of a decrease in their rate of mortgage interest can be asked to repay the IS overpaid.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Legal Aid: Cost
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the cost of legal aid in the current year, and what is the estimated cost next year.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I estimate that net expenditure on legal aid in the current financial year will amount to £1.3 billion and that that figure will rise to £1.4 billion next year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer, is he not disappointed that his gallant efforts to restrain the growth of this expenditure have failed to curtail it? Is it not particularly tiresome that at a time when much very important expenditure is being cut in the interests of public economy this element should be rising?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have sought to restrain the growth of legal aid. I believe that the measures which I have announced and which are now in effect will assist in that direction. However, increasing numbers of people are being helped under these schemes over the years and that, of course, has an effect on the budget in addition to the increases in other elements.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that his efforts to restrain the cost of legal aid are welcomed, even by a considerable part of the legal profession? However, will he bear in mind two factors which could mitigate the problem? The first is the maximum use of conciliation where appropriate. The second is the maximum use of local advice centres of one kind or another, for which there is a demand locally and among local authorities.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have indicated in discussions in your Lordships' House that I believe that there is a good deal to be said for trying to build on local efforts by way of support from the Legal Aid Fund. The Legal Aid Board is examining proposals in that direction.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, must we not come to terms with the fact that the real reason for the increase in expenditure on legal aid is the increased volume of business before the courts, both civil and criminal? Can my noble and learned friend supplement his original Answer by telling us how expenditure is broken down between civil, family and criminal cases in the estimate which he has given?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is true that there has been a certain degree of increase in the business before the courts. However, it is not true to say that
788
that is the sole cause of the increase in cost. For example, the unit costs of civil legal aid rose between 1988–89 and 1992–93 at a rate of 70.5 per cent. Therefore, there are at least two elements at work: the increase in unit costs as well as the increase in the number of units in question.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor aware of the following facts? Over £200 million of public money was spent last year on matrimonial disputes. By contrast, only £1.25 million was provided by the Government to Relate (the National Marriage Guidance Council). Last year that council dealt with 70,000 cases, thereby saving legal aid and national insurance funds many millions of pounds. Given those facts, does my noble and learned friend agree that if the Government were a little more generous in their grants to that organisation they would make substantial savings both in relation to legal aid and social security payments?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend knows, my responsibility in this area is for legal aid. The other grants to which he referred are the responsibility of others. It is perhaps a good idea to encourage others to take responsibilities that one has to discharge oneself. However, I very much accept the thrust of what my noble and learned friend said. I believe that there is value in mediation and conciliation in matrimonial matters and that money spent in that area may be much better spent than in disputes before the courts. Sadly, however, one cannot be certain that however much is spent on mediation or conciliation there will not also be demand for legal aid before the courts in matrimonial disputes. I do not believe that it is established that the one necessarily excludes the other. I am working very hard to bring forward proposals in this area, which would at least take some encouragement from the thrust of my noble and learned friend's question.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I recognise that the Law Society did not succeed in its recent High Court judicial review challenge to the noble and learned Lord's decision to impose huge cuts in eligibility for legal aid, but has the noble and learned Lord taken to heart and accepted the statement of the Divisional Court that whenever time permits there should be consultation with the Law Society and other experienced bodies before changes of this drastic and far-reaching nature are made? Will he undertake for the future not only to consult with those bodies but also to consult with his own Advisory Committee on Legal Aid which, amazingly, he did not consult before his recent cuts in eligibility for legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am of course well aware of the terms of the opinion of the Divisional Court in the proceedings, in which I am glad to say that I was successful. The situation is that as long ago as the beginning of December I intimated what I proposed in this connection. We had a number of discussions in your Lordships' House. I made it clear to anyone who had any interest or anything to contribute, including the legal aid advisory committee,

789
that I would be very glad to hear from them. The regulations making the detailed proposals were not laid until very much later, so there was ample time for consultation. I can assure your Lordships that I paid very close attention to all that was said to me in that interval.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend say whether he believes that the cost of adjournments, both in court time and legal appearances, is significant and, if so, whether he has plans to reduce the number of adjournments which occur?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is often the case that adjournments are costly in a number of ways. It depends a great deal when the adjournment takes place. For example, postponement of a trial on the day on which the trial was due to start can often have very great effects on the convenience of witnesses, jurors and the like. It is therefore important to seek to cut down such adjournments as much as possible.
It is easier to discern the problem than the solution to it. The Royal Commission has proposed some solutions. Not all of those have met with universal acceptance, but who knows, my Lords? The proposals may have met with sufficient acceptance to put some of them into practice.

Plutonium: Stockpiles
3.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in the making of an accurate inventory of the civil and military nuclear establishments and stockpiles in the former Soviet Union, and whether they will postpone commissioning the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield until the extent and condition of the existing world surplus of plutonium and uranium is known.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the making of inventories of nuclear material in the former Soviet Union is a matter for the competent authorities in that region.
On the question of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, it is a policy of Her Majesty's Government, supported by a resolution in another place, to support the commissioning of the plant at the earliest practicable date, subject to receipt by British Nuclear Fuels plc of such consents as are required by law.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, unusually, the Economist recently devoted a leading article to the problem. It pointed out that an atomic bomb can be built with a few kilograms of plutonium and that there are believed to be some hundreds of tonnes of plutonium in existence, half of which is thought to be in the Soviet Union. It is also believed that there are people
790
within the Soviet Union who seek to commercialise the plutonium. They are ready to sell it to anyone who will buy. In the opinion of the Economist, as the noble Baroness may be aware, that constitutes peril beyond the peril which we suffered under the two superpowers. In those circumstances, is it not true that the world needs further plutonium like it needs a hole in the head?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord usually takes his sources from the media. As a nuclear weapon state, the former Soviet Union has a voluntary offer arrangement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. That is progressively being replaced by agreements specific to each republic. Western countries are working closely with them. Wherever possible we investigate reports that we receive on illegal trade in nuclear materials and get in contact with the relevant authorities.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, is it not a fact that the problem at Sellafield has been examined exhaustively over a long period of time, with an inquiry of great length considering all the pros and cons of that development? Postponement of commissioning the plant is leading steadily to the loss of 1,700 jobs in an area of high unemployment and, equally, of large orders for this country. Since everything has been inquired into, the sooner that the Secretary of State can give his permission for the commissioning of THORP, the better for this country, and for employment. We shall gain from money spent and from the orders which will be received. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for putting so well the situation in regard to the achievements reached by an industry of which other countries would be proud.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I fully agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, stated? However, he understates the effect on unemployment. The figures that I have been given in a responsible brief indicate that 2,300 jobs have been lost and that there will be a delay over another 1,000 jobs. Those jobs could be absorbed quickly if the project receives the full go-ahead.
Is it not the case that the second part of the noble Lord's Question does not deal with the reality? Orders worth £9 billion already exist to reprocess existing stocks of uranium. When referring to unemployment, would it not be better to add encouragement to an expanding industry instead of seeking to put a moratorium on it and stopping that industry from providing new employment?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He rightly points out that we should be considering the new shape of British industry. In the North West that is particularly appropriate. THORP will support some 3,000 jobs.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is it not the case that we have some 18,000 tonnes of degraded nuclear

791
material stored at Sellafield under water which we cannot now dry store? What on earth can we do with that material if we do not reprocess it at THORP?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, indeed there is a need to have reprocessing. Perhaps I may point out to noble Lords that reprocessing does not create plutonium. Plutonium has to be managed whether or not the spent fuel is reprocessed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Minister has told the House that Western nations are working closely with the former republics of the Soviet Union in that area. Will she indicate what progress has been made by the republics in their efforts to concentrate and decommission the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union? Will she also confirm that the UK Government have delivered the transporters that they promised last year to help in that process?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, much of what the noble Baroness requests by way of information is a matter for the authorities in Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union. Britain is providing assistance to Russia and other republics in the field of nuclear material. I do not know the position on transporters and I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Baroness aware that we are on the verge of plutonium getting into the hands of terrorists? The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, states that in 50 years the world will come to an end. Is the noble Baroness aware that if plutonium gets into the hands of terrorists it will be much sooner? In those circumstances, ought the noble Baroness to take very seriously the problem that we face in producing tonnes of plutonium in this country? We could produce tonnes of dangerous drugs if we wished; that could create a great deal of employment. However, there are some items which ought not to be manufactured. On further reflection, does she not agree that plutonium is among them?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I draw the attention of the noble Lord to his original Question. I again point out that reprocessing does not create plutonium. What matters is that we have stringent and secure storage of those materials.

Car Theft: Detection
3.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the development and use of new technology enabling stolen cars to be traced quickly.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we welcome new technology which enables the rapid detection of stolen cars, and we will encourage its development and use in the fight against vehicle crime. A system for the rapid detection of stolen cars has recently been introduced, with the involvement of all mainland United Kingdom police forces.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his encouraging reply. If recent press reports are correct, an effective deterrent against car thieves is in sight.
Will all necessary help be given to the police and the public—such as the allocation of radio frequencies—in order to reduce car crime which, unfortunately, is regarded in some quarters merely as a deviant adolescent pastime?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government will welcome any reduction in car crime, in particular arising out of that system. The rapid location of a stolen car equipped with such a device would make the apprehension of the culprit more likely arid would reduce the likelihood of the car being sold on. About one-quarter of all stolen cars are never recovered.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a friend of mine had his Range Rover stolen the other day between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the morning? He then went to the Chelsea police station where the police said: "Yours is the fourth we have had stolen this week". lie said, "What are you going to do about it?" and they replied: "It will not be in the country for long; it will now be halfway to Dover and will then be put on a ship. There's nothing we can do about it". Is it not a strange state of affairs that someone can just load a car onto a ship without having a ticket?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government have a strategy for preventing car crime. The main elements. of that strategy are: to reduce the opportunity by encouraging motor manufacturers to improve the security of their products; to increase public awareness of the costs of car crime and how to reduce the risk; to press the insurance industry to encourage manufacturers and the public to adopt appropriate security measures; and to provide the police with the resources that they need to tackle this and other areas of crime. The Government are also giving the courts the powers they need, such as the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act which your Lordships passed in 1992, and are encouraging local probation services, voluntary groups and others to work effectively to counter motor offending.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, what progress has been made in encouraging manufacturers to fit visible tamper-proof pin vehicle identification numbers, which has been highly successful in the United States and which the police desperately want?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble kinsman makes an important point. It is up to manufacturers to decide what they want to fit. The insurance industry has now established its own criteria on car security for identifying equipment and systems which might meet acceptable standards. We hope that that will give the insurance companies confidence to consider how to offer discounts on premiums on a much wider basis than is offered at the moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it may be the case that in the longer term there will be savings to police operations from the introduction of new

793
technology. However, are there not resource implications in the short term? Can the Minister tell the House what extra help is being given to police forces and police authorities to cover the capital costs and the immediate revenue costs of introducing new technology on 16th August?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is no cost to the police. The receiving equipment which is being installed in police cars is installed free of charge by the company. I understand that the cost is about £160 to the motorist, with an annual subscription of about £60. I think that it is too early to judge how effective that may be. We hope that it will be effective and anything that helps to cut down the amount of car crime would be helpful.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, without in any way trying to diminish the importance or the seriousness of car crime, does the Minister agree that a great deal of it is attributable to young people? Whatever the motivation, the action is not entirely criminal. A great deal of excellent work is being done by local voluntary efforts, particularly involving the police. Courses are run instructing and helping young people to have a responsible understanding of cars, with which some have an absolute obsession. They are taught to drive and mend them, and that is having a noticeable effect on reducing car crime among youngsters.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. The work that is being done is valuable in many circumstances. The Government have already taken swift action against the so-called joy rider through the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act which takes a deservedly tough approach to the serious menace of car-taking. We have also announced our intention to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving to 10 years. We have tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill currently being examined by Parliament to give effect to that.
Lord Monteagle of Brandon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a simple and inexpensive gadget that can be fitted to a car in a place known only to the owner which makes it impossible for the car to start? Does he agree that if car manufacturers could he encouraged to fit such gadgets to all cars, it would make it much more difficult for the cars to be stolen in the first place?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes a useful suggestion which car manufacturers will, of course, consider. I imagine that it will work, provided that the owner of the car remembers where the gadget is.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has my noble friend taken into account the experience in the United States where, in the city of Boston in particular, there has been a great reduction because of a concealed radio device? The police have been able to trace the car within a matter of minutes. If an advance could be made in that direction, it would greatly help everyone's insurance premiums.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we welcome any technical developments in the field that will help to trace stolen cars. I understand that the AA claim that in the United States the system to which the noble Lord refers has a successful record. It remains to be seen whether it can have a successful record in this country.
Lord Montague of Beaulieu: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be a good idea to have consultations with the motor industry and manufacturers as soon as possible to set a date by which all cars will have an effective tracing device?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I think that it is up to car manufacturers themselves to discuss with the insurance industry what they believe would be an appropriate system to fit in cars.

The Citizen's Charter
3.25 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in implementing the Citizen's Charter in the two years since its announcement in the White Paper published on 22nd July 1991.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, excellent progress has been made. The Citizen's Charter: First Report 1992, published in November 1992, showed that over 90 per cent. of the commitments contained in the original Citizen's Charter had been met or tackled. The report also listed over 80 further measures for improving public services. Those, too, are being implemented.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for that informative Answer. May I further ask him: how much has all this cost?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that a more relevant question would be to ask what the costs would have been of not having a Citizen's Charter. Poor service in the public sector leads to inefficiency, and that greatly adds to costs. However, on the purely literal plane of the supplementary question, the total production, publication and distribution costs for White Papers and follow up charters come to about £8 million.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the noble Earl any figures to show how much the charter has improved the standing of the Government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the purpose of the charter is to empower the consumer; it is not meant to do anything for the standing of the Government, although I hope that in the process it has done so. Public services exist to benefit those who use and pay for them. The charter recognises their right to high quality services; to know how well the services perform; and to demand redress when things go wrong.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Citizen's Charter is an important aspect of the campaign to change the philosophy in many public services from one where it is a matter of the number of people who are employed in the service, to one in which it is the service which is given to the customer and consumer? Is not the Citizen's Charter an important step in that kind of change which will benefit every consumer and every taxpayer by providing better services in areas like the health service which will look at the service as something which is given to customers rather than an institution which exists to employ people?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is right. One only has to look at the achievements to date of the Citizen's Charter to bear out what he said. As a result of the Patient's Charter, the two-year waiting time for hospital admissions has been met virtually everywhere. Under the terms of the Passenger's Charter, there are compensation schemes in British Rail, London Underground and the utilities. As a result of the Benefits Agency Customer Charter, the five-day target for clearing income support claims has been reduced to four days.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that some of us are extremely glad to hear him refer to the Passenger's Charter if, by that, he means people who travel on British Rail? We do not all like being called "customers- when we are passengers.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and am fully in agreement with what she said.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Government are supposed to fulfil a public service? Will he give some indication as to whether, at some time in the future—soon, we hope—the Government will live up to the promises that they made at the recent general election?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is because the Citizen's Charter permeates all departments of central government that we can point to the success of the past two years in implementing our aims.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister tell us, apart from the one example that he gave—namely, from five days to four days—to what extent publication of the Citizen's Charter and the rights given thereunder have reduced the time that it takes to get redress?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very important point. That is why we have set up, on a pilot basis, the charter line scheme, which will enable those who wish to know where to complain to to have a number to telephone, whereupon they will be given the requisite information. There is a bewildering array of public organisations. It is important that the consumer knows where to turn.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does the Minister think that the outstanding success of the
796
Government over the past few years will be reflected in the result of the Christchurch by-election next Thursday night?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have every confidence that that will be the case.

Business of the House: Suspension of Standing Orders
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It may be helpful if I add a word of two of explanation. A Motion in similar terms is customarily moved near to the Summer Recess or near to the end of a Session. In this case, the Motion is required for three specific purposes. First, your Lorclships are to debate the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 27th July. As the House will know, this House is not able to amend the Finance Bill. The purpose of the Motion is therefore to enable the remaining stages of the Finance Bill to be taken immediately after the Second Reading debate has been concluded on 27th July and for Royal Assent to be signified later that day.
Second, it is expected that the House will have before it the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill on Tuesday 27th July. As your Lordships are well aware, similar considerations apply to a Consolidated Fund Bill as to the Finance Bill. Again, the purpose of the Motion is therefore to enable the Consolidated Fund Bill to take all its stages on 27th July.
Third, the Committee stage of the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill is currently scheduled to be taken after the Motion relating to the Defence Estimates standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Cranborne. I understand that it is likely that no amendments will be tabled to the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill, and in this event it would, I think, be for the convenience of the House for the Committee to be discharged formally before the defence debate takes place.
Perhaps I could also assure the House that it is not intended to use this Motion for any other purpose than those which I have set out. Each of these purposes has been agreed with the usual channels and, in the case of the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill, with the sponsor of that Bill, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the Summer Recess.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Again it may be helpful if I were briefly to explain the reason for this Motion. It had provisionally been agreed through the usual channels that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill would be taken after the consideration of Commons amendments to the Education Bill next Monday, 26th July. That would have left the consideration of Commons amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to be taken on 27th July.
However, in response to a number of representations, including from the Front Bench opposite, it is now proposed that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill should be taken as first business on the Tuesday of next week, 27th July. I of course recognise the importance which your Lordships attribute to the possibility of a general economic debate arising on that occasion, and it is, I hope, more convenient for your Lordships to have that debate as first business on Tuesday rather than second business on Monday.
However, in order to accommodate this alteration in the business, it is proposed that the Commons amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill should be taken after the Education Bill on Monday 26th July. The purpose of this Motion is to give leave to my noble friend Lord Ferrers to advance his Bill in this way. I should add that subject to the progress of business, it is planned that any remaining amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which have not been debated on 26th July should be taken after the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on the 27th July.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl Ferrers to advance the consideration of Commons amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.] from Tuesday the 27th of July to Monday the 26th of July.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we are very grateful that through the usual channels the pressures that were made known to me and to others have been accommodated. In particular, those who are involved in amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill need the grateful thanks of the House. Their business has been truncated. Nevertheless, they have been kind enough to accommodate the great wish that the Finance Bill be given a proper place in stature in the business of the House. We are very grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993: Protocol on Social Policy
3.35 p.m.
Lord Wakeham Lord Wakeham rose to move to resolve, That this House, in compliance with the requirements of Section 7 of the European Communities
798
(Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before addressing myself to the substance of today's debate, perhaps it would help the House if I were to give your Lordships my advice as Leader, first on the application of the sub judice rule on our debate.
The House has agreed that the practice relating to matters sub judice (Companion, p. 52) should be similar to both Houses. Another place has resolved that reference may be made to matters awaiting adjudication in the courts on matters concerning issues of national importance (May, p. 378). It follows that my advice to your Lordships is that the House may debate freely the policy issues which underly the Motions before us; namely, whether the Government should become party to the provisions set out in the agreement annexed to the social protocol or not. That issue can be debated fully by the House today without any need for any discussion on the legal issue before the High Court.
I should like to remind noble Lords of why we are having this debate today. On Tuesday, your Lordships' House gave a Third Reading to the 1993 European Communities (Amendment) Bill and the Royal Assent has been signified. Section 7 of the Act provides that the Act will not enter into force until both Houses of Parliament have come to a resolution on a Motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering the question of adopting the Protocol on Social Policy. The Motion standing in my name today, asking the House to note the policy of the Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy, is to fulfil this requirement.
The issue before your Lordships is, if I may say so, quite simple. It is whether the United Kingdom should ratify the Maastricht Treaty on the basis on which it was negotiated, or whether, before ratifying, we should commit ourselves to signing the social chapter in due course.
The issue of whether we should ratify the treaty is not in doubt. There have been lengthy debates in both Houses—some 90 hours in your Lordships' House and many more in the Commons—and large majorities at every stage of what is now the European Communities (Amendment) Act for the principle of ratification. The will of Parliament on the issue of ratification has been made clear. And we should be in no doubt about the extent to which British interests would be undermined if we failed now to proceed to ratify the treaty that Parliament has overwhelmingly supported. Perhaps I can just briefly remind your Lordships of the reasons for that.
Europe is this country's largest market. We export nearly £60 billion worth of goods to the Community, 56 per cent. of our total exports; and 275,000 jobs have been brought to this country through inward-investment in the last five years. Two-fifths of Japanese investment in the Community has come to the United Kingdom and over one-third of United States investment. The rest of Europe envies our success in marrying Japanese and European industrial and management practice.

799
The single European market was an initiative begun by my noble friend Lady Thatcher, carried forward by a British Commissioner and seen largely to fruition under the British presidency. But there is still more to do to extend the market into areas not yet fully covered, and where Britain excels, such as telecommunications, financial services, and energy.
We want to extend that market. We want to welcome the Scandinavian nations and Austria, countries that are free traders by nature. We also want to welcome the newly emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe. That will ensure democracy and security. Western Europe already has a surplus on trade with the markets of central and eastern Europe, and it is in our interests to ensure that those markets become more prosperous and more receptive to highly competitive British exports.
Europe is a key player in the GATT negotiations. The United Kingdom needs to maintain its strong voice in the Community to ensure that the current GATT round is completed. Above all, we need to ensure that the forces that would drive the world back into the damaging protectionism of the 1930s are disposed of.
We are part of the Community. Leaving it is not an option. Our only option is to decide whether the United Kingdom is to remain an influential force in directing European thinking; or whether we are content to let others take the lead. By ratifying the Maastricht Treaty we will ensure that Britain maintains its increasingly authoritative voice in Europe, so that we are able to stay at the forefront in shaping Europe's future.
So, the question at stake is whether we should ratify the treaty negotiated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, including as it does the opt-out from the social chapter; or whether we should subsequently seek to re-open negotiations with our partners to exclude the opt-out.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, would indeed invite the Government down that latter road. For my own part, I confess that I can see little substantive difference between the purposes or effect of the two amendments—though no doubt the noble Lords opposite will, with their usual skill and persuasiveness, seek to distinguish their respective positions and those of their parties. While I look forward to their contributions, I think that it is sufficiently clear that each of the amendments would seek to bind the Government to adopt the social chapter. I cannot accept that argument and I urge the House not to do so either.
Let us consider what effects the social chapter would have on the United Kingdom. It would, most crucially, mean more Community involvement in the activities of the workplace, thus giving it the power to impose social and working conditions on the United Kingdom. The Commission could devise centralising and harmonising measures on social and workplace issues—for example, on the rights of part-time workers or on trade union rights. These are matters which the Government believe are best left to individual governments, or indeed to individual
800
employers and their employees. The Community could, under the provisions of the social chapter, subject British industry to a raft of rules and regulations, replacing those appropriate to our country which we have developed over many years. And, because decisions on these issues would be by majority voting, we would be obliged to impose these rules, whatever their cost to individual firms and to the competitiveness of our economy, if a majority of our partners supported them.
But this is not a purely philosophical dispute. It is a dispute about establishing a framework in which enterprise can flourish; for it is the United Kingdom's competitiveness in world markets which is the essence of our debate today. My right honourable friend did not negotiate the social protocol, as the party opposite may claim, because the Government wished to disadvantage British workers compared with their counterparts elsewhere in the Community. Far from it. This country's levels of protection are higher than in many members states. We have the best health and safety record in Europe, one of the best occupational pension schemes in Europe, and the best system for looking after vulnerable people in our society. My right honourable friend resisted the social chapter because he recognised the importance of maintaining and improving further the competitive basis of our economy.
Throughout the 1980s a key objective of the Government was to make the British economy more competitive. The Government's reforms since 1979 have transformed the labour market and our industrial relations record. We have achieved faster growth in manufacturing productivity than any other major industrial country over the last decade. There has been a reduction in the number of working days lost through industrial disputes, from 29 million in 1979 to half a million last year. And the United Kingdom now has the highest participation rate for women in the labour force in the Community after Denmark.
In the 1980s the British economy grew faster than those of our European competitors; and we attracted more inward investment and created more new jobs than they did. It would be folly now to put our achievements at risk, at a time when growing international competition demands higher and higher productivity in Britain if we are to improve growth and create employment.
It has to be recognised that, if the United Kingdom were to sign the social chapter the effects on our economy would be very damaging indeed—British companies would face higher costs, and become less profitable and less competitive. Inward investors from Japan, the United States and all round the world would have less reason to bring their investment here. Even M. Delors has recognised that the United Kingdom opt-out of the social chapter has given this country greater advantage over our competitors in attracting foreign investment.
As we now emerge from a damaging recession and as the economic indicators show that we are moving towards recovery, agreement to the social chapter would herald a return to the industrial framework of

801
the 1970s. It would allow the imposition of higher costs on our business, and so put at risk the jobs of our people.
But this is not a point of narrow British advantage. Our partners are increasingly recognising that excess regulation and social costs are making the Community uncompetitive against the rest of the world. At the Copenhagen Council and in Tokyo it was beginning to be acknowledged that Europe's lack of competitiveness and high social costs had to be addressed, and that to press forward with measures that will destroy jobs, with virtually no compensating benefits, is an unwise course.
Since the mid-1980s, Community exports to world markets have fallen by 3 per cent. and its trade surpluses with the United States and Japan have become trade deficits. These are clear signs that the Community is becoming less competitive, even by comparison with other industrialised countries, let alone the newly-industrialising countries in the Pacific Rim. Countries can only afford social costs with the backing of a successful economy. Competitiveness is the key to generating the necessary wealth.
Perhaps I could turn to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. This would, as I understand it, require the social protocol to be referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House for it to inquire into. I for one have no objection to the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment. But I should point out to your Lordships that the social protocol already falls squarely within the terms of reference of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. In those circumstances, I do not think it would be wise to establish a new committee simply to inquire into the social protocol. Indeed, the European Communities Committee have already produced a brief report on the issue; as indeed, further back, your Lordships may recall that the committee also produced a report on the Social Charter.
It is of course open to the committee to return to this issue in more detail should it consider it desirable. I imagine, for instance, that the committee may choose to look with particular care at any Green Paper which the Commission may produce. But I think that your Lordships would wish to be wary of directing the Select Committee down a particular line of inquiry. It is my belief that Select Committees should be free to determine their own proceedings within the framework laid down for them by the House.
As the social protocol issue is one of which the committee is already seized, I think it would not be appropriate for the House to agree to the noble Lord's amendment, and indeed I hope that he will not seek to press it this evening. However, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, is in his place, and he will no doubt take careful note of your Lordships' views as expressed in this debate before consulting his colleagues on the Select Committee.
Ten other member states have now ratified the Maastricht Treaty as it stands. Germany has completed its parliamentary process and also agreed
802
the treaty as it is. That treaty includes the protocol. It includes the United Kingdom's opt-out from the social chapter. We should now get on and do likewise: ratify the treaty as it stands, as the Prime Minister negotiated at Maastricht. I urge noble Lords to reject the amendments, and to support the Government Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, to resolve, That this House, in compliance with the requirements of Section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.—(Lord Wakeham.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out from ("That") to end and insert ("in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should not deposit the articles of ratification of the Treaty on European Union with the Government of the Italian Republic until such time as they have given notification to the European Community that they intend to adopt the agreement attached to the Protocol on Social Policy.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for exposing yet again the Government's thinking behind their opposition to the social chapter. hear it, as I have heard it before, but I do not understand it now any more than I understood it then.
This is a significant debate and I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will wish the matter to be taken seriously. Therefore I am bound to say to the Lord Privy Seal that I hope the House will quickly reject some of the scare stories that he came out with in the course of his speech. By way of introduction, perhaps I may say that the amendment I move in this House is in identical terms to that being moved by my right honourable friend in another place —no doubt he is in the process of moving it there as I am in the process of moving it here.
There has been considerable speculation both in Parliament and the press regarding the possible outcome of today's debate and its relation to the implications of the legal challenge to the Maastricht Treaty. I was grateful for what the Leader of the House said in regard to the sub judice rule. It accorded totally with the advice that I was given on that subject. But I take the opportunity to say to the Government clearly, and I hope unequivocally and unambiguously, that the Labour Party will resist any attempt by the Government to use the legal challenge as an excuse simply to ignore a possible vote by Parliament in favour of Britain's incorporating the social chapter into United Kingdom law.
We must not forget—we have been reminded about it ad nauseam in the course of the past two or three months—that Parliament is supposed to be sovereign. Noble Lords will recall that one of the main arguments deployed against a referendum was the principle that Parliament was sovereign and therefore was the most appropriate mechanism for considering the intricacies of the Maastricht Treaty. I am sure the House will recognise that any attempt by the Government to bypass the will of Parliament on this

803
issue will set a grave precedent. It will open a Pandora's box full of constitutional complexity, to put it at its lowest.
The Government appear to me to have three principal choices if the amendment is carried in another place. First, they can accept the social chapter. Secondly, they can ride roughshod over the will of Parliament and proceed direct to ratification. Thirdly, they can refuse to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. We on these Benches believe that the only real option open to the Government is to incorporate the social chapter into United Kingdom law. Refusing to ratify the treaty after this lapse of time is, frankly, a non-starter.
I put this to the House. Any temptation the Government may harbour to ignore Parliament will plunge this country into a political and constitutional crisis of the gravest proportions. The Government must be prepared to accept the will of Parliament. If that means endorsing the social chapter, so be it.
At Third Reading I reminded the House of what the Prime Minister told the other place in June of last year. It is worth restating. On that occasion he said that,
"common consent in this country is exercised through a parliamentary democracy and through the voices and words of Members of Parliament in this House".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/92; col. 832.
In view of those words, and also the deep-rooted traditions of parliamentary democracy in this country, the Labour Party believes that it would be outrageous for the Government to attempt to circumvent Parliament. Noble Lords on all sides of the House should urge the Government to think long and hard before going down that route. Equally, any suggestion that the Government could attempt to use the legal challenge as a device to bypass a decision taken in Parliament is quite unacceptable. Will not the Minister accept that it would be a denial of that very parliamentary democracy which the Prime Minister claims to uphold?
The simple, and indeed the honourable option, would be for the Government to accept the social chapter. That would represent one of the most bitter pills the Government could swallow. I recognise that—any of us would. After all, was not the opt-out on the social chapter the Prime Minister's greatest diplomatic triumph? At least, that is what he tried to claim at the time. If it was a victory—and that is extremely debatable—it proved to be almost entirely pyrrhic.
Let us look for a moment at the result and the implications of that great victory: did the opt-out heighten Britain's stature within the Community or extend our influence over our EC partners? The answer must be a resounding "no". In fact, the opt-out on the social chapter helped to marginalise Britain within the Community precisely at a time when Europe is involved in key debates over its future development. It has weakened our standing and allowed other countries to set the pace. Britain consequently has ended up in a position where it is forced continuously to react to events rather than play a more positive role. We could have been, and should have been, helping to set the agenda for a future
804
Europe. We are not. We are quibbling about something which the other 11 member states had no difficulty whatever in accepting.
The Government's attempts to portray the social chapter as a Euro-monster with an insatiable appetite for British jobs also fails to stand up to serious examination. The social chapter is not a deliberate attempt to devastate what the Government have left of the British economy. It seeks simply to offer people throughout the Community the chance to enjoy basic rights such as the right to decent and safe working conditions; the right to be consulted in regard to changes which affect them, and equality of treatment for men and women. As I have asked the House before: what on earth is wrong with that? Can any noble Lord say that he disagrees with those: statements? I sincerely hope not; not even in your Lordships' House.
In essence, therefore, the social chapter is modest in its proposals. It involves an increase in majority voting, to include legislation on working conditions and equality; but it specifically excludes—I hope the: House will note—areas such as the right to strike and. rates of pay. It is a moderate and sensible extension of existing Community social measures, implemented until now under Article 118 of the Treaty of Rome.
I believe that opting out in the way that the Government have, if Parliament today does not reverse that policy, will effectively exclude the British people from those benefits and from those which will accrue from the full social dimension of the Community. There is a harsh irony to it. Despite what the Leader of the House said, in reality Britain needs the social chapter more than most other Community countries. I looked at some of the figures. Take the instance of poverty in this country—poverty being defined by the Commission as having an income of less than half the average in the country in which the people live. It is interesting that on the Government's figures, taking those criteria, one-quarter of Europe's poor—some 13.5 million people—are UK citizens. One-in-four of the UK's population live in relative poverty, of which almost 4 million are children.
I can perhaps also draw the House's attention to other figures which suggest that one-fifth of Europe's unemployed live in the United Kingdom. It exposes a picture of poverty and social degradation which is appalling for the times in which we live. The only conclusion that one can draw—and this is borne out by the Labour Party's commission on social justice—is that the gap in this country between rich and poor is at its greatest for 107 years.
Who will benefit from the social chapter if the Government adopt it? Let us see what is the position in this country in reality. Employment and social rights in the United Kingdom are already inferior to those which exist in most other European Community countries. The proportion of wage earners earning less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold is highest in Britain. We are now the only country without legal pay protection. Working hours for men in Britain are the longest in all the Community countries. We are the only member state without a limit to working hours. Unlike other European

805
countries, no British worker has a statutory right to paid holidays. Apart from the Netherlands, Britain has the largest proportion of its labour force working part-time, yet Britain's part-timers are discriminated against in terms of employment rights and social protection.
The gap in pay between men and women is bigger in the United Kingdom than in most other European Community member states. The abolition of wages councils, affecting mainly women, will widen rather than diminish that pay gap, and is almost certainly in contravention of EC equality legislation. Britain has the worst child care facilities and parental leave rights in the European Community. I have to say to the noble Lord that, for all his vaunting of them, state pensions in Britain are lower—not higher—than in most other European Community member states.
In seeking to deprive British workers of the rights which their counterparts in the other 11 member states can expect to enjoy, the Government will further reduce living standards in the United Kingdom. Frankly, I believe that that is fundamentally against the principles of the Community. For example, noble Lords will remember that Article 117 of the Treaty of Rome specifically states:
"Member States agree upon the need to promote improved working conditions and an improved standard of living for workers".
Unfortunately, such arguments or declarations seem to cut little ice with the Government today. They have abolished wages councils and left the United Kingdom as the sole country within the EC without a minimum wage or statutory protection on working hours. It is precisely for those reasons that the social chapter is needed. The Government have made much of Britain's position as a low-wage country. I am bound to say that we on these Benches find the kind of advertisement that Government departments appear to be putting out to market Britain abroad as a sweatshop economy utterly deplorable. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that foreign investment is attracted not by poor wages or bad working conditions but by a skilled work force, good communications and transport and access to markets. On the contrary, poor wages and inferior employment protection can lead to job losses, not job gains.
The Government have made much of Hoover's transfer from France to Scotland, but conveniently forget the movement of Nestlé in the opposite direction. In the current European-wide recession it is likely that British and foreign multinational companies will close their United Kingdom operations first because it will be cheaper and easier to lay off their less well protected British employees than their European counterparts. I believe that recent events at Leyland DAF have shown the extent to which multinationals tend to concentrate job losses in those countries where employment protection is at a minimum.
The opt-out has not exactly left the multinationals unscathed either, because the Government's opposition to the social chapter has complicated their operations. The opt-out creates a situation in which most United Kingdom workforces will be denied the
806
benefits of the social chapter. However, British workers in continental-based multinationals can expect to be covered by social chapter legislation and British-based multinationals operating in continental countries will have to apply this legislation to their units in other Community countries. This seems to me to be totally illogical. It creates a highly anomalous position that is both confusing and expensive for the companies concerned.
Much has been said about competitiveness. The noble Lord repeated the point this afternoon. The Government's argument is that the social chapter will place Europe under too many constraints and thus undermine the Community's competitiveness. I am bound to say that I regard that as ridiculous because on this premise the United Kingdom, which has the worst employment protection laws in the Community, should be the most prosperous country in Europe. Well, this country is not, and is unlikely to scale those heights by remaining outside the social chapter. I reinforce that point by referring noble Lords to a table in the 1993 world competitiveness report which shows that the United Kingdom has slipped from 13th to 19th place and that our European partners generally provide more social and employment protection yet still enjoy higher levels of prosperity. Therefore, that argument will not wash. I believe that we have to look elsewhere for an explanation.
The Government have consistently claimed that we cannot afford the social chapter. They say that it will raise labour costs, reduce competitiveness and fuel unemployment. The evidence appears to show that, contrary to the thesis advanced by the Government's spokesman, our Community partners and leading world competitors have significant unit labour-cost advantages over us despite having higher wages and social charges. Why? The answer is that their employees are more productive. To what is our lack of competitiveness to be attributed? It stems more from low skills and lack of investment than high wage costs as the Government allege.
The noble Lord referred to those countries which are applying to join the Community. It is very interesting to note that the social chapter has the backing of those countries. Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria all support the need for a Community with an active social dimension, and their accession in 1995 will further isolate this country. The social chapter also has the backing of the European Parliament, including its Conservative Members. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that a gathering of European Conservative politicians censured the Government's opposition to the social chapter. At the end of the day the only other party in Europe supporting the Government's position is M. Le Pen's neo-fascist party in France, which I am sure many noble Lords will agree is hardly proper company.
I should like to say a few words about procedures. If the opt-out remains and the Government fail to take part in the deliberations of the 11, I am bound to say that the relationship between measures under Article 118 of the Treaty of Rome and measures under the social agreement in Maastricht will, to put it mildly, become somewhat delicate. The tendency will

807
inevitably be to use the procedure involving the 11 rather than the Treaty of Rome procedure involving the 12 for precisely the reason that people will say, "Why bother with all these difficult British? Let us do it within the Community of 11 and use the institutions of the Community, as we are entitled to do under Maastricht, without bothering with the British". Again, it will be the rest of the Community versus the United Kingdom.
The Government's short-sighted, capricious and politically-motivated campaign against the social chapter is proving costly. We are now isolated within the Community and removed from the European mainstream. If the Government are to restore this country to the centre of the European debate, as they say they will, as the Community considers its agenda for the next century the United kingdom must get back on board as far as European social policy is concerned. It cannot do that without accepting the social chapter. Failure to do that risks confirming Britain as a European backwater with a low-wage, semi-skilled economy. I believe that the British people deserve much better than that, and it is time that the Government realised it. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out from ("That") to end and insert ("in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should not deposit the articles of ratification of the Treaty on European Union with the Government of the Italian Republic until such time as they have given notification to the European Community that they intend to adopt the agreement attached to the Protocol on Social Policy.")—(Lord Richard.)
4.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I rise to speak to, though not formally to move, the amendment standing in my name. This amendment does not fall formally to be moved until the end of the debate, though I promise not to speak to it again at that stage. I feel that we have not suffered from a shortage of either speeches or words during recent debates.
In spite of what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, your Lordships may detect a certain difference between our amendment and the Labour amendment. We do not do that out of any desire for differentiation for the sake of it. If I may say so, my feelings for the Labour Party have recently been warmer than they were last week when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made such a powerful speech against the referendum and they whipped so strenuously for the Government, a remarkable feat for an opposition, and one completing, as it were, the rich tapestry of the diversity of Labour Party attitudes towards Europe which we have seen over the past 30 years. At least I thought he had completed it until we came to Tuesday night's abstention on Third Reading. But perhaps a Third Reading is not much between friends and it is the intention of my noble friends and myself in an ecumenical spirit to vote for the Labour Party amendment tonight. However, voting when there are only two lobbies cart be a rather rough and ready process.
808
We define our position more precisely with our amendment, for which we also propose to vote—that is, if the Government, as the Lord Privy Seal regrettably indicated, oppose it. I was prepared to express optimistic doubt about that because I recall vividly the ringing declaration with which the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, wound up on Tuesday night, after 10 nights in this House, with a mast able, patient and authoritative performance at the Dispatch Box, one which I think I have not seen equalled in this House in its sustained quality. She wound up saying:
"However, we on the Government Front Bench have made it absolutely clear that the policy of the Government is for Britain to be at the heart of Europe and that the Bill and the treaty keep us there".—[Official Report, 20/7/93; col. 698.]
The aspiration is impeccable but the Act and the treaty as it stands do so only very partially. I defy anyone to deny that what we in our amendment are proposing would place us closer to the heart of Europe than what the Government are proposing, which is the old and weakening British stance of half in and half out which over 40 years has been responsible for a decline in our European influence compared with that of the two principal powers of Europe.
Our Liberal Democrat position is this. We want to see Maastricht ratified. We have done everything we can to assist that. We think that the Government were grossly mistaken in not getting on with it after last year's Second Reading. It would have saved a great deal of time. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would not even have been here. He is not here again this afternoon. We also want the social chapter. We do not think that it is perfect, but nor for that matter do we think that the treaty is perfect. But we certainly believe that Europe needs a social policy. Indeed, the considerable industrial changes which Europe's present relatively sclerotic economy demands renders social policy more necessary. We think that that policy should be flexible and we think that we, the British, should be in at its formation. If, as the Lord Privy Seal says, the other 11 are moving in our direction in this way, and indicated it at Copenhagen, that is surely an argument for working closely with them on an issue and not separating ourselves from them. We do not see a satisfactory future for Britain as a cut-rate economy complained of whenever we appear to be stealing a cheap labour march. That is no way to the heart of Europe.
So far from the Maastricht opt-out being game, set and match for Mr. Major, it has been trouble, confusion and delay. Never have a government said so many contradictory and unconvincing things about an issue as this Government have done about the effect of the various votes on the social chapter. But one of the few things that is currently clear is that the Prime Minister is not saying and the Government are not saying that tonight's votes endanger ratification. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for us to say "Maastricht and the social chapter". We are not saying "no social chapter, no Maastricht". That would not be our position. Our amendment says what we believe and have consistently believed. It says no more and no less.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of SowerbyMy Lords, I need spend little time on my amendment but I am very grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for the explanation which he gave quite adequately and spontaneously of the Government's attitude towards that amendment. I wish, however, to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has just said about the importance of the social chapter in the whole concept of the Common Market to very large numbers of working people.
I remind the House, too, that the Labour Party was very shaky indeed on its attitude towards the Common Market for far too long. It was hostile to begin with and later was unduly lukewarm in its attitude towards the link-up with Europe. It was not until M. Delors addressed the Trades Union Congress a few years ago and presented his vision of the European future and received a standing ovation for it that the labour movement turned more positively towards adherence to the Community. It is that which is so important now. It is so big a slice of the working peoples direct interest in the Community's work and in the chapter and charter that we must pay particular attention to getting the best out of it, examining it closely and presenting it to those who are anxious to see light within it for their own future. If that can be done, we shall overcome a good deal of ignorance, prejudice and indifference towards membership of the European Community which we are getting from a great many working people. There is a trend towards the return of nationalism in various parts of the world today and it is dangerous if it develops in Europe. We must preserve this unity. I believe that this is the basis of peace in Europe. It is the basis of our co-operation with other European countries. It can provide a bulwark against chaos in Europe and the world and preserve the peace for all of us.
I hope that the work will go on on this matter. There is a lot more to do. At the same time, however, it will not be necessary for me to press my amendment later today to get the Government and the Select Committee already sitting to give close attention to their work and be fully aware of its importance in the whole debate.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, being the first speaker in the debate without an amendment or a Motion to propose, I feel that there must he an element of the impromptu about what I have to say. I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on the lucidity and brief and exquisite quality of his address. I should like to associate myself with the remarks which came from the Government Bench two or three nights ago in congratulating him on his approaching 95th birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It gives me some hope at 85. Despite my admiration for him, his proposed amendment was the least attractive to me of the three amendments standing on the Order Paper.
In all deliberative assemblies there is the danger of the debilitating disease of "Select Committee-itis". But I believe that my noble friend the Leader of the House disposed of that on this occasion by pointing out that it is already within the terms of reference of our existing European Communities Committee to have a debate on this subject if it wants to. But I sincerely hope that it will not because we have flogged this old nag, the Maastricht Treaty, interminably and repetitively for so long that if it were a cat it would have exhausted its nine statutory lives about 25 times. Therefore, I hope that we can come to a conclusion today without any further inquiry.
I say this as regards the two Opposition amendments and to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: I respect their opinions about the social chapter. In a different historical context there was a time when I might even have joined them in their views on it. But I do not approve of using it as a lever to prolong the debate on ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Despite the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, I believe that both the Opposition party amendments would have that effect.
We have discussed this treaty at great length in all its aspects many times and over many weeks. We have now come to the point when we have to hold another debate only two days after the Bill has received Royal Assent and become an Act of Parliament. We ought to go ahead with ratification, respecting each other's differences for what they are.
I share the resistance of my noble friend the Leader of the House to the social chapter at this present phase of our development. I do not feel that I can quarrel with the economic view of the Government that the real secret of our economic improvement, and from the point of view of poverty, is to reinstate full employment as part of our social background. I agree with their assessment that the social chapter in its present form might well interfere with that. In my hierarchy of priorities full employment comes very high indeed.
But there is another reason why I do not follow the social chapter argument to its full conclusion which both the Opposition speakers have given. I believe that, given the tapestry of present-day western Europe, there is no danger of our falling behind the rest of the world in social legislation. We are all very high up in that degree of priority. But the differences in conditions from one country to another in the world—with my noble friend, I hope that the Community will not remain very much longer just the 12—the differences in tapestry of culture, social development, pattern and structure of industry, require that these things should, within the limits of decency, be decided by the national parliaments and not by the Community. That is why I do not share the views of noble Lords opposite. I respect them, and they may well be right, but I do not share them

811
because, using the jargon of the day, in its present form the social chapter is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity.
I now come to the Motion. It is on the Order Paper because of Section 7 as it now is—Clause 7 as it was until a few days age—of the Act. I wish it were not there because it has involved us in yet another day's debate. It being there, and if the mood in which we approach the final stages of our arguments should be one of mutual understanding and agreement to differ about important matters, should we not take note of the attitude, as the main Motion says, rather than try to put forward partisan points of view? I call them "partisan" without any sense of deprecation because politics is about parties and about partisan views. But on this occasion should we not agree to differ, respecting each other's opinions, because of one central fact? It is that every time the main issue has come to be debated and divided on in this House—as I hope it would be in the other place —the pro-Maastrichters have won by overwhelming majorities. The time has now come to put it in order and to say that we will finish the job thoroughly today.
I do not conceal the fact that, if I had to swallow Maastricht holus-bolus, chapter and all, I would probably go for swallowing it holus-bolus, chapter and all. But we do not have to do that. The Motion before the House, unamended, is that we take note of the Government's opinion and go forward to ratification. I say this to the Opposition parties: if there were to be a change of government—perhaps they would like one and think that there will be one—they could put the social chapter on the Order Paper and pass it through whatever new Parliament then existed on the very first day of its meeting after the Queen's Speech debate was over. Therefore, no harm at all would be done if they backed the principal Motion on the Order Paper knowing that they had the power—if they could secure it from the electorate—to do exactly as they wanted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord saying that the numerical majority which would still exist for the Conservative Party in this House would not oppose such a Motion tabled by a new Labour Government?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I have not the least idea what the answer would be to that hypothetical question. But I hope that we would behave with the same sense of Christian charity and harmony as I am trying to strike at the present time. I say to some of my noble friends that I sincerely hope that, agreeing as I believe they do with my views about the social chapter—which happen to coincide on two grounds with those of the Government—they will not commence any tactical voting with the desire to defeat the treaty by saying something which they do not believe about the social chapter. In my view that would be both unprincipled and dishonourable. On that slightly uncharitable note I now conclude my remarks.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I do not understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord that carrying these amendments to the Motion would mean delay. They do not need to mean that at all. All that would need to happen would be for the Government to recognise the will of Parliament. There would be no need for there to be any delay if the amendments are carried.
The subject matter was debated at length on 30th June. Reading that debate and the social chapter protocol, I am at a loss to understand why the Prime Minister and the Government have backed themselves into a corner. It seems unbelievable to me that they should have got themselves into this can of trouble. The plain fact is—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Is he telling the House that if this amendment were passed, it would automatically become part of the effective Act which has had Royal Assent? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am saying that if the will of Parliament is that the social chapter should be included, that is what should stand. That is what I am saying. It is quite simple. I should have thought that even the noble Lord could understand it.
Having said that, and disagreeing again with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, on their references to the social chapter, I can only assume that they have not read it. Frankly, my reading of the social chapter does not bear out any of the conclusions that they have drawn. One has only to look at some cif the things in it. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Richard referred to some of them the last time that we debated this. Most of the important areas need unanimous approval—that is to say, we have the power of veto. The agreement states:
"the Council shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission … in … social security and social protection of workers; protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated; representation and collective defence of the interests of workers".
If noble Lords do not want to protect those workers, they would have every right to veto such proposals.
There are many other such areas. The agreement states:
"The provision of this Article shall not apply tc pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs".
There are all kinds of areas in which the social chapter does not apply, so I honestly do not understand how the noble and learned Lord and others can say that the social chapter is so damaging. It is nothing of the kind.
I thought that the strongest case that was made against including the social chapter was in a way better than any of the cases that were made by anti-Maastricht noble Lords and honourable Members in another place. If the other 11 member states, the majority of which (and particularly the bigger states) are such idiots as to want what the Prime Minister has called the "Socialist Charter for Unemployment", what on earth are we doing joining idiots of that kind? The plain fact is that they are not

813
idiots. They have read the social chapter and approved it. For the life of me, I do not understand those who are arguing that Right-wing governments in Europe are so unbelievably stupid as to want to have a chapter which will be so damaging to them. But that is what is being said. If we accept what the noble and learned Lord said, we must ask why on earth they voted for it.
As usual, in our previous debate on this the most logical case to be confronted was put by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in col. 895 of Hansard on 30th June. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord. He always puts a very logical case. On that occasion he started with a reference to the 50 billion deutschmarks cut in public expenditure which the Germans are imposing—as if that had anything whatever to do with the social chapter. Of course, it does not. They have done it and we can do it. Indeed, we may need to make some cuts in public expenditure, although noble Lords may be surprised at how difficult that is to do, as I found in five years' experience in that job. But that has nothing whatever to do with the social chapter.
I think that it is worth quoting what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said because he put what I thought was a good and central issue. Referring to the serious economic damage that may be caused by the social chapter, the noble Lord said:
"To me, the only question is whether it would have been better for us to have been inside the Community advancing that argument and seeking to get sense; or whether we are better off outside, saying, 'A plague upon all your houses. You go your way and we'll go ours'.
It is a difficult issue. I do not seek to answer the question".
In fact, the noble Lord did go on to answer the question when he said:
"that seems to be the essential issue. It is not a question of defending the present social policy at the barricades. Something has to be done about it; there is no question about that. It is purely a question of what is the best way. In the present difficult circumstances the line that was taken by our own Government may"—
it is worth emphasising that the noble Lord said "may"—
"well have been the best line to take, in particular having regard to the vulnerability of British industry. I wish at times that we were a little more honest about our own failings. We have great strengths but we also have failings. Possibly, from time to time we ought to face up to them. We are in a more vulnerable position than many of the countries on the Continent".
The noble Lord concluded by saying:
"It may"—
again, I emphasise that the noble Lord used the word "may"—
"well be that in those circumstances … the Prime Minister was right".—[Official Report, 30/6/93; col. 895.]
So, the Prime Minister may be right in the circumstances where British industry is vulnerable. I thought that the Government had been telling us that British industry is now doing very well. But we now understand that British industry is in such a vulnerable state—more vulnerable than the other 11—that we cannot join the social chapter and we should be outside it. It is the same argument as was put by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I must say that I have rarely heard a more defeatist case than to argue that our industry is
814
so vulnerable to something in the social chapter (of which I have described part) that the other 11 can accept it but that we cannot sign up to it because we are more vulnerable than they are.
The plain fact is that if we vote against including the social chapter, we shall be voting to exclude Britain from the forum which decides how social welfare shall develop. It will develop without us. We shall be excluding ourselves from it. We shall not be at the heart of Europe. We shall be at the periphery. Directives will be decided without us having a say or a vote, but that does not necessarily mean that we shall not have to pay. We shall—in a variety of different ways.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I had proposed to say something about the sub judice rule because the sub judice rule and the privilege of Parliament are the two sides of one coin and inevitably as a parliamentarian, Law Officer and judge, I have to handle that coin and see both sides. However, with the advice of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and with the example of the speeches that have been made, it seems that there is nothing more to say and that your Lordships can proceed to debate the substance of these amendments without fear of embarrassing in any way the judges who might have to decide the issues which have been presented to them.
So perhaps I may say quite shortly why I propose to vote in favour of the Government this evening. There are important considerations which weigh with the Opposition amendment. It is said that by opting out of the social chapter we are distancing ourselves from our European colleagues and, to some extent, gaining an economic advantage over them. Then again, it is undesirable that we should contemplate, as a permanent state, a low-wage economy based on bad working conditions.
But even then there are powerful countervailing arguments. Europe is an international trading entity. It trades internationally in competition with the United States of America, Japan and the other countries of the East Asian seaboard. There is a very high rate of structural unemployment—not merely of cyclical unemployment, but of structural unemployment—throughout Europe, and to add to unit costs by restrictive labour conditions seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. So even if the argument had rested there, I would feel that we should come down strongly in favour of opting out of the social chapter.
In fact, however, the clinching argument to my mind is one that was touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—namely, that the opt-out from the social chapter is a manifestation of the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity means that the decision is taken as close as is reasonable to those who are affected. When I touched upon the matter of subsidiarity in the debate on the Bill, I ventured, not just to define it as I have, but rather negatively: that no decision should be made which cannot reasonably be made by a subsidiary decision maker who is closer to the subject matter. I gave an example from our own domestic scene; in

815
other words, nothing should be decided in Whitehall which cannot reasonably be decided by a county council, and so on down, so that nothing shall be decided by a parish council which cannot reasonably be decided by the parishioner. I remember the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, advancing such an argument when we discussed the Local Government Bill of the last Session. Again, it seems to me that the social chapter has a similar, cogent domestic counterpart.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, initiated an important debate on regional policy—the devolution of the economy towards the regions—at a time when there was a considerable difference in the economy of the North of England and that of the South East. Some of us argued that, in addition to measures such as the devolution of the Civil Service, what we needed most were local wage and salary settlements. If we had that, then the North East, where the cost of living is very much lower, could make competitive bids for industry and commerce, and gradually the economy would rise to the level of that elsewhere. That seems to me to be exactly paralleled by what is being done in our opt-out of the social chapter.
Lord Kaldor used to tell us that we went into industrial decline somewhere about the third quarter of the last century, and that decline has unquestionably been accelerated in the post-war years. We need to catch up, just as the North East needed to catch up with the South East. It is not selfish. It is not for all time. It is the prudent way to set about it. Because, as I said, the opt-out of the social chapter is a manifestation of subsidiarity, I shall vote against the Opposition amendment.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, it seems to me that the political manoeuvring and posturing in which the debate about the social chapter has been embroiled is in real danger of obscuring what is, in fact, a serious issue underlying the merits of the chapter. I noticed that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition gave a long list of alleged inferiorities suffered by employees in Britain compared apparently with employees in every other country of Europe, including, for example, Portugal and Greece. I cannot help but doubt the validity of some of those statistics, but that is not my point. In making them a reason for supporting the social chapter, he did not put forward one concrete argument as to why the adoption of the social chapter would lead to a quicker remedy of those failures of Britain compared with getting on with the job ourselves, with our own Parliament and our own policies.
Of course, the Community must have a social dimension, but it already has a social dimension. It was laid down from the very beginning in the Treaty of Rome. I do not believe that the social chapter, as we now see it, is desirable, let alone necessary, to make fulfilment possible of that social dimension which was written into the European Community from the beginning.
One of the things I wish to do briefly is to put a final nail, I hope, in the coffin of the myth that has been propagated: that those who care about employment
816
conditions in this country are those who support the social chapter; and that those who disagree with the social chapter are those who do not care. That is a lie. It wants nailing, and nailing finally.
Perhaps I may be personal for a few moments. My first speech on a major public occasion was at a Conservative Party conference in Brighton, think in 1948, when I was a seconder to the late Reginald Maudling who proposed and persuaded the conference to adopt what we called the workers' charter. When I became a Member of the other place, my maiden speech—so long ago was it that, strange though it is to believe, I made it in your Lordships' Chamber because that is where the other place was still sitting—was about joint consultation in industry. The text of my speech on that occasion was that until ordinary men and women found satisfaction, and not just material reward, in their work, they would not lead fully satisfying lives, nor would we have a satisfactory community. That is the first social priority.
What is needed to assist that process? It is, first and foremost, to produce at any given moment the highest possible level of employment. Mass unemployment is a great cancer in our society. We must never underestimate it. To do anything which, even in the short term, might prejudice that is against that major central priority. What else should we expect from governments if we are to promote that social enhancement? First, and most importantly of course, it is the provision of a first-class education and training system. We do not have that, but we have been moving towards it, I am glad to say, in recent years in a fundamental way.
We also need proper protection for health and safety. We need, I have always believed, a proper framework of civil law, governing the rights and duties of employees, employers and their organisations. That is something, incidentally, which the Labour Party opposed with all its main and might for many years, It resisted it being introduced by its own government, but now, apparently, wants it introduced from Brussels. Be that as it may, those are all measures which are within our own powers to give and get on with. We need no social chapter to help us to do so.
This is not a field where the wholesale harmonisation across many countries of Europe is necessary or desirable. On the contrary, it is a field where flexibility is increasingly needed on purely economic grounds We need flexibility within one country, let alone flexibility within different countries. It is also a field where, in social terms, the needs, hopes and fears of ordinary people, and the priority which they give to them, vary enormously from country to country, according to their circumstances, cultures and histories. It is not a field where provisions can be standardised throughout the 12 existing members of the Community, let alone what I hope will soon be a. significantly larger number of members. I submit that it is a field where the provisions need to be tailor-made for each country within the Community. If ever there were a field for the strongest possible application of the principle of subsidiarity, it is this.

817
I believe that the Prime Minister was right to exclude us from the social chapter. He was right for immediate and long-term economic reasons and for social reasons to give us, as a country, the freedom and the responsibility to pursue vigorously our own social policies and priorities and to use what I hope will be our increasing national wealth to enhance the quality of work and life in this country.
Parliament has had many opportunities to express a view about the matter. It approved what the Prime Minister set out to achieve before he went to Maastricht and it approved that again when he returned. Both Houses gave the Bill an overwhelming majority on Second Reading and this House gave it an overwhelming majority on Third Reading. I believe that the greatest need for this country is to achieve rapid ratification of the Maastricht Treaty without the social chapter.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may reply to his challenge. He challenged me to produce an example of the way in which the social chapter would have made a difference to people in this country. Perhaps I may give him two examples to consider. The first is the rights of part-time workers and the second is parental leave. I raised both issues in 1981 and 1985 when I was Commissioner for Social Affairs. Both were strangled at birth by the then Conservative Administration led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. There is no doubt that if there had been European legislation in respect of those two issues the position of part-time workers in this country would be better, as would the provision for parental leave.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, that may be an adequate criticism of the Opposition and the Government of the day. However, it is no argument for the need for a social chapter to remedy the problem.
4.52 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, those of us who begin the day with "Thought for the Day" on Radio 4 know that this morning the Reverend Philip Crowe told us of a lady who had reached the age of 100 this week. When asked what she wanted of the future she replied, "To hear no more about all that Maastricht". That is understandable. Indeed, we have heard from several noble Lords on the other side that they have heard more than enough about all that Maastricht. I am afraid that they are going to hear a great deal more —and they will hear a great deal more about the social chapter, whatever the result of today's votes.
It would be naive to try to change minds at this stage. However, we might try to clarify issues; in particular those behind the social chapter. In the light of the Government's refusal to sing the protocol, will they tonight clarify what they regard as their policy on the role of international action in maintaining and improving labour standards? That is the central issue behind the protocol. As was mentioned by noble Lords opposite, irrespective of the protocol we are signatories to a series of declarations which assume
818
that we believe there to be a role in international action for maintaining and improving labour standards. The ILO conventions, the 1961 European Social Charter, the 1972 Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act were statements and declarations involving the Government's commitment to a role for international action in maintaining and improving labour standards.
By refusing to sign the protocol the Government seem to be declaring that they do not believe that there is a role any more. They appear to believe, as at one stage the noble Lord, Lord Carr, appeared to say, that governments should be allowed to do what they like with labour standards. Certainly that is what they have been doing since 1979. As my noble friend Lord Richard said, they have, inside the Commission, opposed every attempt to extend international labour standards—whether the Fifth Directive and the Vredeling Directive or the watering-down and frustration of drafts on equal treatment, the transfer of enterprises, working time, parental leave and so forth.
Worse than that is the fact that on several occasions when drafts have become directives this Government have implemented them only when pushed by international courts. The House of Commons Research Paper 93/28 on the Maastricht issue showed that we are the worst country in Europe as regards the non-implementation of directives. We are four times as bad as the average. Therefore, I ask the question: do the Government any longer believe in international action for the maintenance and improvement of labour standards?
That brings me to my second question. The Government certainly believe in international action in almost every other field. That is involved in membership of the European Community. I looked at the treaty and the excellent document The Maastricht Treaty in Perspective and I sought to classify the areas in which irrespective of the social chapter the Government are committed to international cooperation in the formulation of rules. They involve everything from agriculture to tourism including auditing, budgeting, a central bank, commerce, drugs, external markets, exchange rates, electoral systems, the environment, foreign affairs and so forth. We have had rules about all those issues and others such as formal qualifications, growth rates, health standards, inflation rates, interest rates, international crime, immigration, tax principles and transport. You name it, it is there! This Government clearly believe in international co-operation and common standards in every area except the labour market. My question is: why?
I do not suggest that in every one of those areas the Government believe in laws. I do not suggest that they do not believe that some decisions—for example, that on a common currency—will have to come back to Parliament. However, in principle they are in favour of international co-operation, rules, practices, procedures and convergence on all those issues except the labour market. My second question is: why should the labour market be excluded?

819
That brings me to my third question. I am pleased to say that it was raised by my noble friend Lord Barnett. What about the way in which this Government are totally isolated from all the other governments in the Community? We have had no explanation of that except the occasional insinuation that they are all being hypnotised by M. Jacques Delors. One would have thought that there would have been one country in Europe with a similar political government, of similar size and with a similar level of employment protection somewhere down the bottom end of the scale who might have said, "On the whole we agree with the British Government".
It might have been, for example—and I should like to know why the Government believe that it was not the case—that the four countries with a lower level of GDP than ours (Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece, which has half our GDP) would have said, "This social chapter really would ruin us. We can't afford it". But they have not done so. What is the Government's explanation of that? Or one might have thought that the seven countries in the Community with a higher GDP than ours—for example, Luxembourg, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Italy, most of whom have levels of employment protection which are considerably better than ours in the area of the Social Charter—would have said, "We have had enough. It is too expensive. We will follow the British lead. We will join the British Government". Nobody did that. Therefore, I ask the British Government what is their explanation for that, beyond the hypnotic effect of M. Delors' oratory?
That brings me to my fourth and final question. Could it be that there is something in what those countries say? Even at this stage could not the Government think again for the future about the weaknesses of their isolated position? As far as I understand it—and this point has been made several times in the debate and no doubt will be made again, but it is necessary for me to make it again very briefly—there are three reasons why the other countries do not agree.
First, they believe that for the most part the chapter, focusing not on pay and social security but on working conditions, focuses on areas where the record shows that, in the long run, action taken to improve working conditions of that kind raises productivity. This is because it introduces practices which the best employers already operate and forces the worst employers to operate them.
That was the argument used in the "ten hours" legislation in 1847 in this Chamber. At that time Members of this House who opposed that legislation said that it would ruin the country; and it did not. The difference was that 10 years later those Members all came back and said that it had not ruined the country and they apologised.
This Government have published over and over again in Department of Employment research papers inquiries which show that that was and is the effect of the legislation, some of which was first introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, in 1971. His unfair dismissal provisions have not ruined the country.
820
They have improved personnel practices because the bad employers are forced to do what the good employers already do.
The second European argument is that, in the short run, the determination to lower standards can legitimately be described, as a form of social dumping. If one country gets away with it, it is a form of protection. After all, that is what the Government say over and over again. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said it in opening today's debate —that they hoped that through a low standard of employment protection, we shall be able to undercut Europe. That is a form of social dumping. In the short run, it can be dangerous although in the long run it does not help anybody.
Finally, the Europeans say that by introducing the vast changes involved in the single market with a single currency and free movement of capital and labour the workers will suffer and something should be done about that. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, told us that when he was at a Conservative Party conference some little while ago he campaigned for a workers' charter. We do not hear that language from this Government today. We hear about every other charter. There is a Customer's Charter, a Patient's Charter and a Citizen's Charter. There is every other charter but there is no worker's charter. That is what the social chapter is all about and that, is why we shall vote in the way that we shall this evening.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, we have spent a great deal of time looking at, reading and trying to understand both the Maastricht Treaty and the Protocol on Social Policy. Indeed, as has been mentioned, some would say that we have spent too much time. The noble Lord the Lord. Privy Seal reminded us that we have spent 90 hours discussing those matters. However, I must admit that my current reactions are identical to my original ones and I really have not changed my views since Second Reading on 8th June.
However, despite the fact that we have spent a great deal of time already discussing the social policy, I feel compelled to spend just a little time giving a further explanation of my antipathy to the Social Protocol and, as a consequence, my relief that the Prime Minister negotiated an opt-out clause in Maastricht. I am the first full-time worker in industry and commerce to speak in the debate so far.
On the surface, the social chapter is a bit like "motherhood and apple pie"; it is very worthy. The objectives of promoting improved working conditions and an improved standard of living can, and should., be subscribed to by all. However, there is an underlying divorce from reality and a fundamental misconception of how imposed regulations would affect the world of work, the world of trading and, as has been mentioned already, the level of international competition. By imposing the harmonisation envisaged in the treaty, the whole European Community would be consigning itself to ever-declining standards; of living and, by consequence, deteriorating working

821
conditions. My Lords, why is that? It is because we just could not afford them. Our international competitiveness would be so seriously eroded.
Of course, we all want to see improved working conditions but, from my years of experience in industry and commerce, I know that improved working conditions are a very local issue. I have known workplaces where the single most demanded improved working condition is that the whole workplace should be designated a non-smoking area; another workforce demands that a creche should be installed on site; yet another that a creche should be installed off-site so that anxious mums do not rush back and forward from the office or the factory. Imposed from Brussels, how would management and staff together decide to work out those problems? These may sound comic issues to your Lordships; but I can assure you that those simple—or apparently simple—issues dominate the debate on improved working conditions in the real world of work.
Improved working conditions are a local issue. They are not even—and I say this to the Government —national issues to be dictated from Whitehall. Of course there should be, and there is, legislation to deal with improved working conditions in the areas of health and safety; and, as the Lord Privy Seal has said, we have the best health and safety legislation in Europe. But the general move to ever improved working conditions must be worked out at local level between all those affected; namely, management and staff who have a detailed knowledge of the aspirations of the local workforce and the needs and demands of their customers.
As regards an improved standard of living, that would be achieved only by creating wealth. Such wealth creation will be achieved only by being increasingly internationally competitive.
On Second Reading, I gave your Lordships the figures of the high cost burden of social charges pertaining to other EC member states by comparison with those of the UK. If we were ever tempted to adopt the social protocol our international competitiveness would be sorely diminished. We have struggled long and hard to get where we are. Please do not let us even contemplate yielding on this now.
As regards harmonisation, why do we believe that all should aim to harmonise? Our international trading competitors must be praying that the whole of the EC will harmonise to the lowest common denominator, which in this case means the highest on-cost for social charges. I bet they are not too happy with the UK just now.
I know from many conversations with nationals in fellow member states that they are not too happy either with the UK just now; industrialists throughout the Community are envious of our competitive advantage and wish that they had it. Dare I say?—I will!—politicians often think that they know best how industry and commerce should be run. They do not, my Lords. They often think that they know best as regards what working conditions the workforce wants; they do not.
822
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked why the other 11 governments espouse the social chapter if it is harmful. I submit that those governments are not in touch with their industry and commerce. Again, the politicians may think that they know best. According to the industrialists and businessmen in those countries, they do not. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, wonders why countries like Ireland, Portugal and Greece espouse the social protocol. Could it be that they toe the line because they are considerable net beneficiaries of European Community funds and really wish to safeguard that source of income?
Let us wake up. The world out there is not likely to buy our goods if they are so much more expensive than those from the Far East or even Czechoslovakia, which is currently producing semi-manufactured goods at half the cost of those produced in neighbouring Germany. The products of China are cheapest of all. While the international trend towards lower costs is escalating at a frightening pace, do we willingly wish to go the other way?
There will always be calls for harmonisation; there always have been. In my brief period as an adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture, I remember well how the Dutch tomato growers were seen to be the niggers in the woodpile because they were getting subsidised gas, and UK farmers were saying that the interest rates which the French farmers obtained from the Credit Agricole in France caused unfairness to UK farmers.
I have to say that it makes a nice change to see other member states now complaining about our low cost base. Indeed, an article in last Saturday's edition of The Times says it all:
"Belgium seeks EC debate on BA's low wage costs".
Could it be that the Transport Minister, Guy Coeme, is slightly envious of the fact that British Airways put in post-tax profits of £178 million compared with Sabina's £120,000?
I shall conclude with one thought. Is it possible that instead of being isolated in the European Community, as has been suggested by many, we might become the leaders of the movement to reject the mandatory nature of the social policy when others realise that we have taken the right course—that is, the only course —in opting out?
5.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness, in what I hope she will allow me to say was a most impressive and persuasive speech, made a very important point; namely, that knowledge of what should be done by way of labour policies, social policies, and so on, is not a matter upon which politicians have any monopoly and that, indeed, those who have worked in industry, as the noble Baroness and I have, know that there can be very different views. In that context, I should like to recall to your Lordships the view of the matter expressed by the CBI whose industrial experience is, of course, all-embracing. In a very recent document, the confederation said:

823
"The Social Chapter has very little capacity to do good —in terms of improving employment conditions—and a great deal of capacity to do harm—in terms of imposing pointless costs and rigidities., destroying competitiveness and jobs".
That is the view of the CBI. Whatever noble Lords may say about the confederation, it is not lacking in very widely connected knowledge of industrial conditions. I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is not now in his place. I say that because I should like to take up a little of what he said. He drew attention to all the adverse features of the working of our economy today. He appeared to suggest that they were likely to be remedied if we adopted the social chapter. As has already been pointed out, he produced no evidence for what he said and, indeed, it seems most odd to suggest that applying quite a few complicated restrictions on the operations of industry would be likely to help. It is surely at least as likely that it would be extremely harmful.
I thought that the whole of that argument, in the noble Lord's otherwise admirable speech, was extremely weak. If any of us really thought in our hearts that adoption of the social chapter would bring about a great economic recovery, we should be very well disposed towards it. However, the truth of the matter is that not only is there no evidence to that effect, but also that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition gave a very one-sided view of the situation. He passed over without comment the fact that we in this country are further now towards, coming out of recession than any of our European friends; and that, on the contrary, our position is steadily improving. During the past few weeks there have been some extremely encouraging items in respect of production, sales and so on. If there is anything at all in the noble Lord's argument, it points absolutely the other way.
The other serious point that I should like to leave with your Lordships is on subsidiarity. If we accept the social chapter, we are handing over to Brussels the organisation of social support in industry, restrictions on industry and industrial practices. That seems to me to be wholly wrong. not only because they are matters which we are concerned to handle as we think right, but also because the situation differs in different countries. For example, our social and personal habits are quite different from those of people in other European countries. Therefore, surely it is most important that, if one is laying down rules in respect of working conditions, they should be laid down by people who understand the habits and practices of their country rather than by an international body operating in an area where social habits are different. I strongly believe not only in the principle of subsidiarity but, in particular, in its application to those very matters which the social chapter covers.
If we are to have a happy and successful industrial system and if we are to have people working in a situation in which their real needs are sensibly and intelligently catered for, surely the decision as to what those rules and regulations should be must be one which is made by our own fellow countrymen. I know of no reason whatever for believing that to hand that over to a body in which we shall be but a small
824
minority and one which has majority voting, that would overrule our small minority, would be of any advantage. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am much obliged. Does the noble Lord agree that the points he makes about matters being decided close to the ground by people who know could apply just as well to many other issues which we shall decide collectively; for example, educational qualifications, auditing principles, health principles and the regulation of transport? All those matters could equally be said to be best decided on the ground by us.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes me to deal with all those issues, I shall, indeed, take a great deal of the time of the House. However, I do not propose to do so. We are not dealing with education; we are dealing with working conditions in industry and social policies in that connection. The noble Lord cannot just run away by introducing all those extraneous matters and avoid the points that I am making which, apparently, he does not wish to controvert.
In industry it is necessary for regulations to be compiled by people who understand local conditions and needs. That is what accepting the social chapter would forfeit. For that reason, I hope that we shall not at any foreseeable time accept it. On the contrary, I hope that we shall accept that the regulation of such issues, which matter so much to so many of our people, will be kept in the hands of people who, at any rate, know the situation and needs of the country and of our fellow countrymen. For those reasons alone, I think that the case against the social chapter is absolutely overwhelming.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, for members of the present Government, the social chapter has now become a totem pole around which they are dancing with increasing frenzy. As we have heard today from many of the speeches, the debate has taken on something of the nature of a charade which has very little to do with the Europe that we know, to which we wish to belong and in which we wish to participate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, even questioned the fact that we were having the debate. I have to tell him that we are having the debate because his son in another place accepted an amendment which stated that we had to have the debate today.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I made it quite clear that I wished that he had not.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I shall trespass no further on that intra-family relationship. it think that the noble and learned Lord's son was wiser than his father today.
Following on from my noble friend Lord Barnett, I come to the first question that I want to ask. In recent days three senior Ministers—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, this

825
morning on the radio, Mr. David Hunt, Secretary of State for Employment—have used "socialism" as a term of abuse about this chapter.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Howell: My Lords, noble Lords on the other side of the House say, "Hear, hear!". The question to be asked is why the Government believe that they can possibly advance British interests by calling Chancellor Kohl a socialist. It is an interesting question, to which we would like an answer.
The same applies to some of our other partners, as the noble Lord said. Let us remind ourselves that of all the other 11 member nations five have governments which in no sense can be described as socialist and five have coalitions in which socialists participate. Only one country in Europe has a socialist government, and that is Spain. Therefore, I want to draw the attention of the House and the Government to the fact that, whatever the outcome of the Maastricht Treaty, when it is all over we have to return to the councils of Europe and negotiate and co-operate with our fellow member states. In my experience it does no good to insult your partners before you have to sit down and negotiate and discuss with them.
Therefore, I object to the fact that for purely party political reasons which we know about and because of the difficulties which the Government face, they are jeopardising the future relationship of this country with our European partners. That is not statesmanship: it is stupidity.
To raise a point which I do not believe has yet been mentioned, I also have the gravest doubt as to whether we can escape the consequences of the socialist charter.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear! Very good!
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am very happy to have made that Freudian slip because I happen to believe that all the best Conservative Governments have to embrace some degree of socialism from time to time in order to achieve cohesion.
The point I want to make is that the social chapter is implicit in the Treaty of Rome itself. All that Maastricht does is to put meat on the bones of the Treaty of Rome in taking this forward. For example, paragraph 1(d) of Article 85 declared that it is incompatible to:
"apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a trading disadvantage".
My noble friend Lord Richard mentioned Article 117 in a similar context.
Then again, under Article 86, which deals with abuses in trading positions, we have signed and declared that to apply,
"dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions … thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage",
is unlawful. That is the background. We have subscribed and signed up to all that.
So what do the British Government have to say? Do they believe that they can escape the consequences of the minimum wage, of social legislation and of legislation relating to equal pay and conditions? I do
826
not think so. I have not the slightest doubt that this matter will be tested in the European Court. It is almost certain to be tested in the Court, and the Government will be left with egg on their faces again because they are attempting to give us supposed advantages over our competitors. As has already been stated in this debate, the Treaty of Rome is all about the harmonisation of relationships and trading conditions within Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to the CBI. I recently heard on the radio the head of the German equivalent of the CBI make it very clear that as soon as he found any British companies trading unfairly by applying these opt-outs the matter would be taken before the European Court. The German SDP party has already made a similar statement. Indeed, Mr. Vitor Martins, the Portuguese Secretary of State, said that we risk:
"putting the eleven at a competitive disadvantage in relation to the UK".
He referred to it as an abnormal situation which requires solution. That means that they will take us to the European Court. Therefore, it seems to me that this charade will be exploded in due course.
There is another aspect to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. Quite apart from the legal consequences, I believe that to opt out of the social chapter is a recipe for industrial conflict. I speak as someone who has been president of a trade union for 12 years. Your Lordships may be surprised to know that I spend most of my time trying to avoid industrial conflict, as most good trade unionists do.
Perhaps I may give an illustration. The Ford Motor Company manufactures cars in. Dagenham and in Portugal. If it is proposed that the workers in Portugal shall be at what this Government describe as an unfair disadvantage in relation to the Ford workers at Dagenham, what do the Government think will happen? Do they believe that the Portuguese workers will allow themselves to be undercut by Dagenham, or do they think that Dagenham will be happy to work at a disadvantage in relation to Portugal? No, my Lords. That is the argument for having harmonisation. I therefore hope very much that the Government will understand the industrial consequences of this situation. As many speakers have said in this debate, that situation can be repeated anywhere where British firms which are multinationals are establishing companies in Europe as well as in this country. They will find themselves in conflict if the Government are successful in this situation.
The next point that I want to raise is the fact that it makes no sense to allow other Community members to make social policy in our absence. In another place Mr. Eric Forth said that the conduct of business along the path laid down in the Social Charter is a matter for the other 11 countries:
"The United Kingdom shall not take part in their deliberations".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/91; col. 242.]
Have we learnt nothing from the common agricultural policy? Have we learnt nothing from our failure to get into Europe, to sit round the table and to be present and involved when policy is made in Europe? Are we prepared to say that the other 11 nations can make all

827
the social policy for Europe —which will certainly apply to this country for the reasons I have given—and we should not be there? What nonsense it is that the Government continue to repeat the mistakes which they have made before and which have cost this country so dear in the past. I hope that that will be considered.
I shall conclude by saying that there is a problem —which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, touched on in his opening speech—concerning the relationship between the European Community and what are now called the Pacific rim countries. That is a very important factor which we have to sit down and think through. We need new strategies. I repeat that it is ludicrous in the extreme to exclude ourselves from those discussions. However, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. and the Government say that we have to persuade the other 11 countries to join us in dealing with the competition from the Pacific rim by reducing the whole of Europe to the wage levels of the sweat shop conditions against which we complain. That is not the way for this nation to go. If we were to go down that road we should have much social unrest in this country.
I cannot understand what is wrong with Article 1 of the social chapter to which the Government are opposed. With your Lordships' tolerance, I shall read Article I. It states:
"The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion. To this end the Community and the Member States shall implement measures which take account of the diverse forms of national practices, in particular in the field of contractual relationships. and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy".
That is the declaration in Article 1. How anyone can vote against those principles is beyond my comprehension.
In conclusion, in the interests of this country nationally, co-operatively and in terms of social harmony and future industrial policy it is inevitable that we should embrace those principles and it is good sense for us to do so today.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, earlier in his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, reminded us that the current Treaty of Rome has a title with social provisions. He referred to Article 117. He might have referred to Article 118 and the succeeding articles too. In order to make our flesh creep, he referred to other articles elsewhere in the Treaty of Rome which relate to competitiveness. He stretched their interpretation as far as I have ever seen any piece of elastic stretched.
I do not share his fears. I see no reason why he should be so worked up about the fact that we shall be left out of discussions on social matters. We have joined in those discussions since we joined the Community in 1972–73. We have been present at the Councils during that time. I have no doubt that we shall continue so to do. The question that we have to ask ourselves today is whether we want to depart from
828
the regime that we have accepted—it seems to have worked well over the years—and give Brussels power, which it has not had before, to make laws to enforce rules and regulations upon us. That is why we are having this discussion. That is why I, along with my noble friends who spoke earlier in the debate, welcome the Prime Minister's success in negotiating our opt-out of the social protocol. We welcome the Motion that the noble Lord the Leader of the House moved today. The issue is not about our belief in good working conditions or good social arrangements for workers in industry and in business generally. The issue between us today is this: where rules have to be made, who makes those rules?
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, reminded us that the regulation of working conditions arid the way in which people behave is settled by local bargains at plant level, business level, or sometimes by industrial agreements. Very seldom is it settled by laws. However, we have some laws which have worked well, and we improve them from time to lime. That is the way in which we have learnt to behave in this country. We happen to approach the issue differently from some other countries. But we do so largely because of our traditions and habits, and the localities in which we work. I should have thought that that is an application of the principle of subsidiarity to the Protocol on Social Policy.
I remember in earlier discussions that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, waxed eloquent at the Dispatch Box about the importance of' subsidiarity. He believed that it ought to apply more than it does to affairs of this country. He was referring to local government. But why should that principle not apply to working conditions, to social policy in industry, and so on?
Colleagues of the noble Lord—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the point too; I see that he is taking notes —have championed exactly the opposite: no longer will the rules be made in the plant; no longer will they be made by British industry; no longer will the laws be made by Parliament, but by Brussels. That seems to be their battle cry. I do not know whether that battle cry will reverberate around the battlements of Christchurch. However, it is an interesting battle cry on which to fight the last little episode on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, usually commands my attention, and often my great support, for what he puts before us. I was astounded when he stated that Britain needs the social chapter more than any country in Europe. Does he really believe that Brussels will make our industry more competitive or our people working in industry happier? I am surprised if he believes that. He cannot have had much experience in industry. Many noble Lords who have spoken have such experience. We know that to make a firm as competitive as possible our relations with our workers have to be the best that we can afford. The question is: what can we afford? We are more likely to be able to decide that even than noble Lords opposite, and more so than Brussels.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, the opt-out does not in any way inhibit

829
Parliament from considering all or any of the questions raised in Brussels under the protocol. If we believe it right to alter any of our laws on any matters current in the protocol, or suggested in a Green Paper, we are free to do so. That should be made absolutely plain. If we decide to do so, we shall be deciding with the knowledge of what can be afforded and what is most likely to be acceptable. We would be mad indeed if we sought to regulate work or employment conditions, or in any way to add to the costs of business so that we damage the competitiveness of any business trading and competing overseas.
Even if we acted in the name of helping employees, if it led inexorably to the collapse of the business in which they worked, it would lead to the loss of their jobs. It would lead to a situation that was bad for our country and for Europe.
As I said at the beginning, we have different ways of doing things from Germany or elsewhere. Recently that has resulted in productivity here improving more than it is there. In earlier days, the opposite took place, and much of that was due to legislation put forward in the late 1970s by the party opposite.
Let me be quite clear. We in this country, and I certainly speak for myself, share the objectives of Articles 117 and 118. We share the objectives of Article 1 in the social protocol. However, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, did not read out the other articles. He did not read out Article 3 which gives power or corporatism—I have never quite understood what corporatism is—for legislating agreements between UNICE (that is the CBI of Europe and the TUC of Europe) and turning that into rules which have to be obeyed at all the plants.
What did Mr. Ashdown, the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, have to say about that? He said:
"Article 118/3 of the social chapter opens the way, as the Prime Minister said, to European-wide collective bargaining … arrangements. They are wrong for this country's future and contrary to this party's belief in decentralised wage bargaining … It is … an approach that failed in the 1970s, and one that will not work in the 1990s. It is too inflexible, too costly, and too rigid".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/91; col. 303.]
I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, supports the Labour Party in its approach to the problem. It seems to me quite inconsistent with his party's attitude and I am very surprised. He, or someone, accused the Government of making many contradictory statements. If we examined the statements made on the social chapter by the Liberal Party, we would find it impossible to make more contradictory statements more frequently.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Aldington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not going to speak later?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord found one contradictory statement, but I do not think there would be any difficulty in finding more than one coming from the Government.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I have three here but I was not proposing to read them all out. I shall read
830
one on which I shall end because I believe that I have already spoken for too long. In the Liberal Democrat News at the end of 1991, Mr. Ashdown said:
"There are too many socialists in Europe who have been encouraged to believe that they can win through Brussels the intervention measures that they have failed to get through their own national Parliaments".
That is what he said and it is exactly that for which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, proposes to vote tonight.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, in rising to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, I wish to address a relatively narrower issue than those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I ask: why is it that the Government withdrew their support from the social dimension of the market? After the Commission's White Paper in 1985 and the Cecchini Report of 1988, it was agreed by all 12 heads of state that there was a need for a social dimension. I quote the words of the conclusions of the Madrid Summit:
"in the context of the establishment of the single European market, the same importance must be attached to the social aspects as to the economic aspects".
It is quite clear that the social aspects involve intervention in the market, which some Ministers were once prepared to do but it now seems that that is offensive. Why was that? It was because one of the predictions of those reports was that in at any rate the first phase of the single internal market there might be—indeed, in one case there would be—a serious loss of jobs and that the redeployment and restructuring which were inevitable would need in them some protection for those upon whom otherwise the main costs and burdens would fall and are now falling.
Noble Lords who speak about these matters must remember that, with a return of the reserve army of unemployed of 18 or 19 million in the Community, whoever is doing a little better or a little worse in the member states, it is a shocking situation. It is that situation that the social dimension addressed.
The Government supported the social dimension. I shall give one example as evidence, because I see that that statement creates something of a shock across the Chamber. On 8th November 1989, the Minister for Employment, Mr. Eggar, speaking for the Government, told your Lordships' Select Committee that they were,
"committed … to fulfilling the social dimension".
He said a little later, taking account of the doctrine of subsidiarity, that there was no basic challenge to the need to fulfil a social dimension. He said that the Government were guided by the Madrid conclusions; and there are many statements of that kind. I do not remember any great wave of protest from the Conservative Party or the Conservative Benches against that statement. Of course, it then depends on what one puts into the social dimension. Some of the contents proposed were far-reaching. It is well known that M. Delors convinced the British Labour movement that there was something in it at the TUC conference in 1988 when he said that the social dimension should include lifelong retraining, employees' participation in European companies and,

831
"every worker's right to be covered by a collective agreement".
None of that is in the social chapter.
Yet by 1980 the Government had resiled from their support for a social dimension and will not now support even the minimal procedures for the social chapter. I insist that they are procedures. They are often publicised as though they were a set of substantive norms for employment law, but they are a set of procedures.
In that historical context I believe that we can heavily discount the recent rhetoric about "burdens on business", competitiveness and loss of jobs which came later than the change of government policy. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that the Government are not against European collective bargaining because it is European. They are against European collective bargaining because it is collective bargaining and may negotiate protection for workers. The noble Lord has a distinguished record on collective bargaining which I appreciate. However, the Government now believe that all the structures which he helped to build in the port industry and elsewhere should he dismantled into individualised employment. That is, of course, the key to the change.
If we look at the social chapter what do we find? I submit that we find three categories. First, we find a group of bipartisan matters; that is to say, the pursuit of policies concerning equality of the sexes and a ban on discrimination, although, alas, not a ban on race discrimination, which may be the hole in the heart for the Community in many ways. Further, we find improved measures on health and safety at work, which historically this country saw on its statute book earlier and which in some respects are better than, and at any rate as full as, those of any other member state.
If health and safety legislation is acceptable, whether it be at European level or otherwise for the Government, by what divine ordinance is the permission retracted when we pass across the boundary into modest legislation on working hours? Why is there that line, other than by reference to history and the work of Professor von Hayek? Apart from that, I can find no justification for drawing the line in this ideological manner. All other social legislation appears to he bad, apart from those two now traditional policies.
Secondly, it is true that Community competence in the Council of Ministers is extended by the social chapter's agreement to decisions by qualified majority, but only over a comparatively modest range—for me, far too narrow in many respects. I willingly concede that.
What do we find? It does not extend to social security, to collective interests of workers or to the employer's right to dismiss workers. Under Article 2(6) it does not extend to freedom of association—something which the Commission ought to face up to but will not. It does not extend to pay. It does not extend to rights to strike or rights to lock out. The Minister—
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Did I
832
understand him to say that the social policy agreement did not include social security? I draw his attention to Article 2, paragraph 3, where it says,
"the Council shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission … in the following areas:
—social security and social protection of workers".
I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, in which case I apologise, but I should like to draw his attention to that paragraph.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right in what she reads. But I was referring to the qualified majority provisions. It is from that narrow area in the chapter that all these provisions are excluded, by two different paragraphs of Article 2. There is no minimum wage, despite what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said. He is not here, but I am sure that he will correct me if I get it wrong. He said that all sorts of trade union rights could be introduced. How you do that by not being able to pass a qualified majority decision. without touching upon freedom of association, rights to strike, lock out and so on, defeats me. I have no idea.
Thirdly, the main areas set out in the social chapter—and this is what it comes to—are: first, consultation with employees; secondly, integration of persons excluded from the labour market; and thirdly, working conditions. Those are the three main areas of new possibilities for qualified majority decisions.
The historian will find it difficult to understand how noble Lords on the Benches opposite, who played such a distinguished role in introducing the Industrial Relations Act in 1971 and passing new laws on rights of association and unfair dismissal, can object to this extraordinarily minimal document of procedures. What has happened is due to the Government's unquenchable appetite to strip away, on the one hand, employment protection legislation and, on the other, collective bargaining from the market. Those aims were made quite explicit in their White Paper of last year, in which they state that they wish to replace collective arrangements with individualised employment relations. That is the Government's norm: it is the star which they follow —ideas which are not shared in Bonn, or indeed in Paris, or in Italy.
It is true that many of those national labour laws have changed and been adapted over the years. But the notion that you should not approach large areas of the labour market on a collective basis is one which is not shared in other member states. That curious and unique belief of the Government is the problem in regard to the Social Charter, not its contents.
Finally, in another part of the chapter, (I say this for completeness) Articles 3 and 4 aim to facilitate collective mechanisms at European level for consultation or negotiation. I must admit that some are more optimistic about that route than I am. It is not at all clear how the legal and industrial difficulties of Community level negotiations could be overcome in the translation or transposition of European level agreements or arrangements to national or sectoral level in the domestic labour markets. Two examples show the extraordinarily narrow point of this part of the chapter. Declaration No. 2 attached to the agreement clearly states that there is,

833
"no obligation on the Member States to apply the agreements directly … nor any obligation to amend national legislation … to facilitate their implementation".
What is this part about? This part is about agreements. No employers need go further than they will agree in these arrangements, even were the arrangements to work rather more easily than I would foresee. Nor is there anything in the social chapter to breathe new life into Community plans for the protection of part-time workers; nor in regard to worker participation in a European company, and so forth.
The reality of the social chapter is not the normative Frankenstein, even if all the procedures were used to the full, that exists in the nightmares of Ministers; nor is it, in my submission, the passport to more sun and cheaper wine, which those who support it appear sometimes to suggest. It is a very careful and narrow document for a beginning of a social dimension.
It is well documented that many, many ordinary people have a sense of disillusionment about the Community. The impoverishment of the social dimension has been a major cause in that. If you lose a job and you have been led to believe that something will perhaps come from Brussels to protect you, when you find that it is not there, that is a rather more serious situation than most of us experience most of our lives. It is that disillusion to which the Government have contributed. They have done that rather than support this first fragile set of procedures to protect workers and their families in the coming economic storms.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said this afternoon; and I listened carefully to what he had to say when we debated the subject of the social chapter at Committee stage. I must say that I find it very surprising that he has nothing to say about Europe's 18 million unemployed; nor about what might be the causes of Europe's persistent unemployment; nor about what might be done to remedy that situation; nor what part social costs might have played in bringing about that situation or what part their reduction might play in improving it.
To some extent we are conducting two separate debates. Noble Lords opposite are discussing the social policy to some extent in abstract. Those of us on this side, I do not say of the House but of the argument, while not denying the desirability of much—not of all but of much—of what noble Lords opposite argue for, nevertheless try to relate it to the economic circumstances of the day.
I have no doubt that the agreement on social policy attached to the treaty which the 11 have signed up to represents the opposite of the approach required if Europe is to make progress in dealing with its chronic and related problems of unemployment and declining international competitiveness. The very last thing that the Community should be thinking of is raising the costs of production and employment by social
834
legislation and placing further bureaucratic and interventionist rigidities into the functioning of an already notoriously inflexible labour market.
I emphatically do not agree with what Mr. Gordon Brown, the Treasury spokesman of the party opposite, is reported to have said earlier this week; namely, that,
"The future lies with the advocates of the Social Chapter rather than the reverse".
There is a dawning realisation in Europe that social legislation has been pricing people out of jobs. It is reflected in Chancellor Kohl's almost despairing description of his country as one large amusement park, with the shortest working week, the oldest students and the youngest pensioners in the industrialised world. It is reflected in some, if not all, of the remarks that President Delors has made; and it was reflected in his analysis of the Community's competitiveness problem which he delivered to the Copenhagen Summit, which I believe our Government found little to disagree with, although they did not follow him in regard to the remedies that he proposed.
Of course this continental "mea culpa" is not the only voice to be heard in Europe; it is not even the loudest one. We would not have the social chapter if that were the case. The call is still very much heard for Europe to protect itself from low-cost imports—a corollary of a high-cost social policy.
Also still heard is the false cry of social dumping, which claims that the creation of the single market requires labour costs to be levelled up across the Community so that no one member state can enjoy a competitive advantage in that respect over the others. Indeed, I am quite sure that a determination to remove this country's labour cost advantages was one of the motives behind the social chapter.
I was at one with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, when he spoke on this subject the other day in considering the accusations of social dumping to be an absurdity—as absurd and as self-destructive as if interest rates or productivity rates were to be set by legislation at whatever was the least competitive level prevalent in the Community at the time.
We must stoutly repudiate the argument about social dumping and all charges of it when levelled against ourselves. One very good reason for us to refute it is that it inevitably brings in its wake a call for the further massive transfer of funds to poorer, more remote regions, whose ability to compete the social policy will have destroyed. The European Commission does not seem to find it very disagreeable organising the transfer of large sums of other people's money from one member state to another. No doubt it enjoys the gratitude of the beneficiaries and the status of a Robin Hood in their eyes. But as a member state more transferred from than transferred to, we have a very obvious interest in limiting the growth of that tendency.
The effects of social policy as it has developed on the Continent can be seen in Europe's high non-wage labour costs. Non-wage labour costs in the United Kingdom fall within the same bracket as in Japan and in the United States—between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of total labour costs. However, in Italy, France

835
and Germany they fall within the 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. bracket—that is, 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. higher. No wonder that Britain has been attracting the lion's share of foreign inward investment into the Community and no wonder that other member states should be keen to see us subscribe to Europe's social legislation under another chapter of the treaty if need be.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the relative figures that he gave have been roughly the same for the past 30 to 40 years and derive from the fact that in this country we do not finance the welfare state on the back of employers? That is the difference.
Lord Reay: I do not have time to pursue that argument at the moment. Nothing better illustrates the effect of Europe's high cost social policy than the contrast between the employment record of Europe and that of the United States of America. With a population two-thirds the size of the Community but with a flexible labour market, the United States has succeeded in creating nearly 40 million jobs since 1971, nearly all of them in the private sector. The Community by contrast has succeeded in creating barely 3 million new jobs in the same period, many of them in the public agencies.
The result is that the unemployment rate in the Community at approaching 12 per cent. is almost twice what it is in the United States and the contrast between the rates of structural unemployment is even more striking. In 1991, according to OECD figures, only 6 per cent. of the US labour force had been out of work for 12 months. In the Community that figure approached 50 per cent. I suggest that it is to America that Europe will need to look for lessons on how to restore incentives and flexibility in the labour market, if Europe is serious in its intention to do anything about unemployment. It is on American experience that I hope that our Government will draw when they come to submit their paper on competitiveness to the European Commission, as they have been invited by the Council to do by 1st September.
However, I must say that I can understand the force of the argument of those who say that despite the wrong-headedness of the social chapter, nonetheless it might have been better had we signed up to it; that it is uncertain what if any legislation it will give rise to; and in particular that it is always better in principle to be present to influence the formulation of Community policy rather than seek to be absent and try, perhaps vainly, to exclude ourselves from its effects. That is a tempting argument.
On the other hand, I would argue that our conviction about the very enormity of the Community's error in this field can best be expressed by our refusal to have anything to do with it. It may even be the case—I argue that it was the case—that excluding ourselves would have more effect than anything else in getting the Community to change its ways. It is certainly the case that much of what the Community seeks to do in the field of labour relations—the expensive standardised procedures of works councils, the bolstering of the position of trade unions
836
and so forth—is particularly inappropriate in this country. Our lower manufacturing productivity, which is still up to 30 per cent. below the Community's levels even after the improvements that my noble friend the Leader of the House mentioned, is another reason why in this country we would not be able to sustain non-wage labour costs as high as those on the Continent.
Be that as it may, securing the social opt-out in the teeth of opposition was a diplomatic triumph for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. To ratify the Treaty of Maastricht without the social chapter is now the expressed will of Parliament. I fully hope and expect the Maastricht Treaty to be ratified as it was negotiated and as it has emerged from this House, without the social chapter and without any promise to sign up to it in the future.
6.5 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, with his usual happy versatility, has made a speech which was both statesmanlike and seductive. At this time of year, the argument "Let us go for ratification quickly and think about the social chapter later" is bound to have very great attractions. On 22nd July any Parliament may be entitled to say, "We have sat here long enough for any good that we have done".
I am also grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for making clear that ratification is not at issue in this debate. That is the basis on which we take part in it and that is a central point in our position. But. I put to the noble and learned Lord a question. Seductive though his suggestions are, do we in fact legally have that option? Or is the noble Lord, Lord. Howell, right and we are in fact committed to a common social policy for the Community?
Are we committed because we have not understood the significance of intent in the development and interpretation of Community law? It seems to me that the significance of intent in Community law has led to a great deal of misunderstanding during our debates. Had certain opponents of the treaty understood that, they would not have had their fingers burnt.
When I developed that argument in Committee, I was extremely interested to notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, whose handling of these, debates has been the only great pleasure about them, did not deny what I said. To my great amusement, shedenied something that I had not said. She said:
"The noble Earl, Lord Russell, winding up for the Liberal Democrats, used the phrase, 'In legislation, intent is all'".
I think she will find that I did not use that phrase. She went on:
"That is not so. It makes a great difference what legislative powers are given to carry out that intent".—[Official Report, 30/6/93; col. 916.]
I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness said. Therefore it is rather unfortunate that, as I read Articles 117, 118A and 118B of the Treaty of Rome, we are committed to a common social policy but not to any specific content of that policy. In fact we have left others to draft the content of a common policy which we, willy-nilly, sooner or later will have to accept.

837
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who talked about what he called Article 3— I believe that he will in fact find that it is Article 4— of the social protocol. That seems to me to be a good deal too centralised as an approach. But my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown realised very quickly, as I hope perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, may realise rather more slowly, that we shall not change that unless we are inside the process. I promise the noble Lord that when he realises that, I shall not twit him with changing his mind. I shall let him off.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, also asked why this was not a matter of subsidiarity. It is simply because we have signed up to the contrary already. We may have been right; we may have been wrong. But under the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act we have actually done so.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, argued that the use of "competition policy" by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was far-fetched. I ask him to look, when the Official Report is published, at the opening speech by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. I believe I have his words right. He said that not signing the social chapter will give us a greater advantage over our competitors. I ask him to consider how those words would look quoted in evidence before the European Court of Justice in proceedings under Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome, or if the noble Lord, Lord Howell, prefers, under Article 86.
I do not see how we can have a single market without having some element of common social policy to go with it. The question then arises: what are we going to do about it? Are we going to change our minds now or are we going to go down the alternative route? That is, will we wait until the case goes before the European Court of Justice and then, to the utter shock and horror of some of the opponents of the treaty, be dragged kicking and screaming into a social policy that we have not helped to form? If that happens I do not look forward to hearing the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, saying: "I told you I would tell you 'I told you so"'. That may take a little time.
On the bigger argument, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that we have been having two debates. It is essential to engage with the economic philosophy which is behind the Government's objections to the charter. That makes me understand why in the 19th century, in the heyday of practical economics, it became known as the "dismal science". It is the Government's belief that by cutting the cost of labour one automatically increases the demand for the product. If there is no other variant, that may be true.
We hear behind that argument and the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for example, the common free market English of labour being like apples in a market place. If apples do not clear it is because we have not lowered the price far enough to clear them. If there is no independent variable, that is all right. But labour and apples are not exactly the same. Let us take one significant difference: apples do not spend money. On the other hand, when labour is paid wages it
838
spends money. If it spends less money, the money it spends will generate less employment and then there will be less money, which again will generate less employment. Or again—I was going to say that apples do not have children, but that perhaps is not quite accurate—apples do not have dependants. So if the price of apples goes down, their dependants do not then become a charge on public funds.
When we think of costs we must think of total costs. Non-wage labour costs are not the only costs that enter into our competitiveness. So if by lowering wages we generate, through family credit and housing benefit, a massive charge on public funds, we do not become any more competitive at the end of the day; or again, we do not increase our competitiveness by generating a massive under-class. I do not need to talk about the costs of crime. The House is well aware of them.
I appreciate that the Social Charter is something different from the chapter. It is referred to only in a matter of general intent at the beginning of the protocol. But were we to accept, for example, Article 10 of the charter—that everybody shall be entitled to an adequate level of social security benefit—we would not have what we have now with 16 and 17 year-olds—a denial of all benefit, which may render some of them unemployable for life. In the present demographic situation young people are a scarce resource. It is not good economic policy to squander them.
If we talk of total costs—and competitiveness must be a matter of total costs—then we must think of other costs which are being placed on business. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, if I have the phrase right, objected to "any addition" to the costs on business. I believe that that is the correct phrase. I beg the noble Lord's pardon if I have it wrong. But certainly we have an argument in which the Government are relying simply on the concern of business costs.
I shall take that a lot more seriously when they abolish the uniform business rate; when they repeal the Statutory Sick Pay Act; when they stop asking business to pay for London orchestras; when they stop asking business to pay for university research; and when they stop asking business to pay for the Jubilee Line. Those are not necessarily businesses' business. But the costs of labour properly are. And when they do their sums I hope that they will abandon the old Treasury practice of counting only the expense and not the extra revenue which may be generated by getting people into employment. If they do that, they will find that the costs of the social chapter look extremely different from the way they looked yesterday to Mr. Forsyth.
I shall touch only on one other point—the political situation. In relation to this Bill we have a hung Parliament. Although there is a massive majority for the treaty in both Houses, there is not down the road a majority drawn from a single party. In that situation one needs to think about the possibility of partnership politics. However much one believes in a specific measure, it is difficult for any opposition party to sustain in office the most unpopular government within living memory. We try to do what we believe in,

839
but it seems reasonable that, if that is to be done, there should also be some adjustment; there should be something in return for that support.
As the Government need the support of the official Opposition, they should consider that there are only two things that they can give them which are big enough to bring in the support that they need, and which they may need yet again should court action prove successful. One of those is a general election. I do not believe that the Government want that. The other is the social chapter; they may find it cheap at the price.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise briefly to remind your Lordships, following my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, that noble Lords who support the amendment and who sit opposite are not the only people with social consciences and that their final objectives differ little from ours. However, we differ on the means of attaining them.
They broadly see the function of government being to run a programme of social development within which the economic machine has to generate the cash to pay for it, and they apply that model to the European Community. We see the function of government being to run a programme for economic development generating the resources necessary for whatever social development we desire and can afford; and that is how we see the Common Market.
Hence, the instinct of noble Lords opposite is to back the social chapter and they must then advertise its attractions by praising its products. That the noble Lord, Lord Richard, proceeded to do with a string of statistics chosen with not a little skill, as my noble friend Lord Reay brought out a moment ago. I should like to add a few comments to what he said.
There was no mention of the 18 million unemployed in the rest of Europe; nor was there any mention of the fact that only Denmark and Luxembourg had a higher proportion of their population in work. As regards working hours, he did not tell your Lordships that the United Kingdom had the broadest range of working hours in the Community. Fifteen per cent. work more than 48 hours per week, but 20 per cent. work less than 30 hours per week. That reflects the choice of individual workers made in conjunction with their employers. It is not for Brussels or other member states, using majority voting (as they would do under Article 2.1), to tell British workers how long they should work. Nor did the noble Lord mention that 21 per cent. of the British workforce were in part-time work. That figure is well above the European average. As I understand it, only 6 per cent. of those who work part-time do so because they cannot find full-time jobs.
The noble Lord proceeded to run down our social achievements without mentioning that we alone with Denmark provided comprehensive medical services for all residents irrespective of their means of paying for them. In addition, the United Kingdom's record on health and safety is second to none.
840
That brings me to the question of the agreement on social policy itself. However, before looking at it I ask your Lordships not to judge it on the sales pitch of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, or to be reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—supported with some vigour by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—who said that everything important in the social chapter was regulated by majority decision. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, shakes his head, and I happily absolve him of the charge. I concentrate upon his colleague. Article 1 defines the area of application:
"The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour. the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combatting of exclusion".
Article 2, which precedes the paragraph referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, lists the items to be dealt with by qualified majority. The first one is irrelevant as it is already covered by the treaty: health and safety. It is a matter on which we already have a very good record. The second is working conditions. That is a vast area for interference. The next matter is the information and consultation of workers. I do not accept that the Greeks or Portuguese have anything to teach us about that. The next matter concerns equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work. The final and most surprising item is the integration of persons excluded from the labour market; that is, the unemployed. That represents a huge area of possible interference by a body which is not thought by many of your Lordships to be best qualified to deal with it. Conditions vary from country to country. For example, consider when the Spanish have their dinner and then suggest that they can advise us on how we should arrange our working conditions.
If the application of the agreement is as narrow as some noble Lords have suggested—in that respect I believe that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, correctly—your Lordships may think that it is a matter of very little importance whether or not we sign up for it. If it is as wide as I believe it to be, it is a matter of considerable importance.
We come back to the question of what we believe the Common Market is for. We believe that what is needed is a single market surrounded by the machinery necessary to make it work and to keep it stable and secure. That is the essential core. That is needed as a means of achieving a healthy economy able to generate the wealth that we need to improve our lot. When I say "our lot", I mean the lot of all the citizens of this country, not some elitist stratum that occasionally Members of the Party opposite seek to impute to us.
We have the priorities right. We share the ambitions of noble Lords opposite for the improvement of this country but, unlike them, we have some prospect of achieving it. It is because the social chapter is symptomatic of their approach—that we must first decide what we want, then buy it and find the money

841
—that these amendments are irrelevant and should be brushed aside. We should vote for my noble friend's Motion as it stands on the Order Paper.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I submit that the measures described in the social protocol are themselves innocuous. Nobody can seriously believe in the hyperbole which characterises the social protocol as a threat to British and European industry. As I have argued in earlier debates, the costs which are imposed upon European industry by the knock-on effects on wages of the high food prices of the common agricultural policy are far greater than the wildest nightmares of the Benches opposite about the social protocol. Similarly, no one can seriously suggest that incorporating the social protocol into British law will transform the employment conditions of British workers for the better. The impact of the social protocol on workers' rights is minimal compared, for example, with the Government's own health and safety or wrongful dismissal legislation.
What is all the fuss about? Why have the Government gone out of their way to antagonise their European partners, prolong the already lengthy debate on Maastricht and court the risk of political defeat for such minor measures? One plausible explanation may simply be gross political incompetence on the part of the Government. That is not an issue upon which I wish to speculate. I believe that there is a more fundamental and deeply-felt reason for the difference of opinion that we hear today.
The social protocol, innocuous though it undoubtedly is, is a touchstone for profound differences in both the formation and implementation of economic policy. It defines the dividing line between those on the Government Benches who regard labour as a cost and those on these Benches who regard it as a resource. The essence of the social protocol, and the intellectual thread that runs through these otherwise insignificant measures, divides those on the Government Benches who regard any increase in social expenditures or the rights of workers to be additional expenses, which in the interests of competitiveness must be minimised, from those on these Benches who see a proper extension of workers' rights and social expenditures as investments in the long-term quality of the labour force—investments which in this country have been dangerously neglected. That is the crucial divide in this debate. Unlike the social protocol, which in itself will have only minor effect one way or the other, the difference in approach is the key to our entire economic future, permeating as it does all economic policy-making.
The protocol comes down firmly on the side of those who consider labour to be a resource. That is evident from Article 1:
"The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives… the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment…"
It is also evident from Article 2 which lists the fields to which the protocol is addressed. Those have recently been listed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton: the improvement of the working environment and
842
working conditions; information and consultation; equality between men and women; and the integration of persons excluded from the labour force. That latter point refers to the disabled and those who do not have the facilities to compete in the labour force under current circumstances, not the unemployed.
All of those areas point to the need to invest in the quality and use of labour as a resource. It is that investment, geared to building the long-term efficiency of the labour force, which is the key to competitiveness. I take one example from the list: equality between men and women. In the cause of cost-cutting the Conservative Party has consistently opposed every measure brought before Parliament to achieve equal rights for women and equal pay for equal work. The result has been a continuing waste of the skills and talents of women in this country, diminishing the efficiency of the British economy.
The same is true of "information and consultation of workers", another item from the social protocol list. While the party opposite chants a familiar mantra of preserving the manager's right to manage, it fails to notice that modern management practice has moved on. Efficient management now recognises that consultation and information are part of any apparatus of efficiency. The same is true with respect to working conditions and health and safety. Today enlightened management clearly recognises those facts. It knows that investing in the labour force is the only way to a competitive future. But it is faced by a Government and by its own organisation, the CBI, declaring that these are not matters for legislation; they should be left to the individual firm—points echoed today by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
The CBI makes that point in the parliamentary brief which it distributed to noble Lords prior to the debate. The CBI brief states:
"As a general principle, the closer the setting of employment conditions to those directly affected, the more likely they are to suit individual tastes and traditions".
Maybe they will fit individual tastes and traditions, but that is hardly the point. Individual tastes and traditions will not be much good in the competitive struggle against Korea and Taiwan. The question is whether the setting of employment conditions at the level of the firm is the most efficient.
Consider, my Lords, the crucial component in the development of labour as a resource—investment in skills and training. Everyone knows that the British economy suffers badly from having an undertrained, underskilled labour force. Yet in current circumstances, in which training is determined by individual employer's tastes and traditions, it is in the interests of each individual employer to cut the costs of training and poach trained workers from other companies. The result is that the rational decision of each individual employer to minimise his or her costs leads to an irrational, inefficient decision for the economy as a whole with a diminished expenditure on training.
Exactly the same is true with respect to the development of women's employment rights. The issue of equal pay is not just about fairness; it is also about investment in women's skills and the development of women as a vital resource in the

843
economy. Yet those firms which neglect to invest in women workers can cut costs by exploiting the pool of skilled women created by their competitors. Once again the rational decision for the individual employer produces an irrational result for the economy as a whole. The same case can be made for all the measures covered by the social protocol—for getting the disabled back into the labour force, for health and safety, for information and so on. The reason that the same case can be made is that in all circumstances the protocol is about the development of labour as a resource and the fact that in so many cases this will be done efficiently, enhancing the profitability of the whole, if there is a collective responsibility on all employers to share in the investment.
Moreover, the blinkered view of the Government and the CBI systematically reduces the flexibility of the labour force. If workers' rights and working conditions are kept at the level of the individual company, then workers will be locked into individual companies, not efficiently allocated in the economy as a whole. Take, for example, the provision of workplace nurseries provided by the individual co:mpany rather than nursery places available to all. In that case women will be reluctant to leave employers providing nurseries even though their skills might be more efficiently used elsewhere. Defining rights and conditions at the social level rather than at the level of the firm increases market flexibility and the efficient allocation of resources as well as raising the quality of the labour force.
In an era in which capital is internationally mobile, in which technology knows no borders and in which markets are global, labour, and the skills of labour, are the ultimate resource. That is why the view of the Government, who treat labour as a cost and seek to leave the responsibility of investment in labour to the narrow calculation of each individual firm, is so profoundly mistaken. This "labour as cost" obsession, which defines the Government's opposition to the social protocol, has unfortunately gained wider credence during the current recession.
Not just in Britain but all around Europe—indeed, throughout the OECD—governments are reacting to falling revenues and rising expenditures created by the recession by seeking to roll back the gains in workers' rights and protections as well as by cutting welfare expenditures. This reaction to the world-wide recession—cutting expenditure, reducing working conditions, cutting training and other investments in the labour force—is almost exactly the reverse of what is required. The OECD as a whole needs a reflationary strategy to attack the waste of what we were told on Tuesday by the OECD will be 36 million unemployed in the advanced countries. Europe as a whole even more desperately needs a co-ordinated fiscal expansion to attack the dreadful waste of 17 to 18 million unemployed in the Community. Instead we see everywhere policies reminiscent of the 1920s and 1930s, when successive expenditure cuts, successive wage cuts and successive cuts in working conditions saw the economies of the West spiral downwards towards disaster. Nothing undermines more destructively the ability to engineer a general recovery
844
programme than one major country opting out., seeking to be a free rider on the rest cif Europe. That is what Britain is doing in opting out of the social protocol.
Indeed government Ministers have boasted—the Lord Privy Seal boasted today—that we in Britain, by lowering the conditions of work and by refusing to invest in our labour force, will attract investment away from our European neighbours, will steal jobs from them. So instead of fostering a co-ordinated European strategy, the British Government are actively sabotaging the very foundations of co-ordinated recovery. By pursuing their own small-minded, short-term local rationality they encourage an irrational result for the Community as a whole. This Government seem to be content to secure a larger part of a shrinking cake rather than fostering the co-operation which would secure an equal part of a growing cake.
Europe as a whole needs to develop its most important, indeed its only, unique resource—the quality and skills of its labour force. Investing in that labour force—securing the commitment and confidence of the labour force—is not an expense: it is an investment in our future. 'We will never compete with the technical sophistication of the new economic powers of the Far East if we continue to treat labour as a cost and not as a resource.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for being in his place as I stand to address the House. lit enables me to make a small personal statement. I am an admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Richard! This has been going on for a very long time—nearly 30 years now. It started in an agriculture hall in Aylesbury in January 1964. I should in a small digression explain that the agricultural hall in Aylesbury in January 1964 had been chosen as a suitable place for the Great Train Robbery trial. I was so young that I was only a bag carrier at that trial but the noble Lord, Lord Richard. had a more significant role.
The trial had been going for only a few days when that role became even more significant because the noble Lord, Lord Richard, lost his leader, which is a kind of occupational hazard for junior members of the: Bar. In the loss of his leader the noble Lord had to address the trial judge, Mr. Justice Edmund Davies, on an exceedingly difficult point of law. I remember to this day the eloquence of his argument in January 1964. I have witnessed the eloquence of the noble Lord's argument on many occasions since then, right up to today's debate. However, my experience with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is that one has to go rather deeper into the eloquent argument that he presents to us.
Very broadly speaking, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has invited us to sail our ship of state over the gentle waves of the social protocol on the argument that it is well chartered water. The noble Lord argues that the "Social Policy" in Title III of the Treaty of Rome and in the subsequent provisions,

845
included by the Single European Act in Articles 118a and 118b, have been with us for some time. He argues that there is nothing new and nothing to be afraid of.
It is necessary to look a little deeper into those waters because beneath the surface there are rocks which I venture to think the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is aware of. I do not have any difficulty in approaching the drafting of EC lawmaking in the conceptual manner in which it is drafted. Indeed, I find it helpful to see broad, simple statements of policy. I shall not illustrate my argument again with one of the Ten Commandments lest I choose the wrong Commandment. But having established what I believe to be the helpful approach of simple propositions of broad policy, it is necessary to look at the application of those policies. If we do not like them it is then for us to stand up against them.
One of the areas of Community competence set out in Article 118 of the treaty is that over "working conditions". The noble Lord, Lord Richard, argues that everybody should agree that there should be Community harmonisation over such a "basic right". But as my noble friend said in our last debate on the social chapter, these measures go further than the welfare of the worker. They go to such things as working patterns, minimum paid annual leave, parental leave and special leave. They are matters which should be dealt with but not at Community level.
It is important to identify exactly where the rocks are. The best example that I can bring to your Lordships' attention is the posted workers' directive. Interestingly, the legal base for that directive was not under Articles 117 to 122 which are the social provision Articles in the treaty, but Articles 57.2 and 66. Therefore, they come under the chapter in the Treaty of Rome dealing with the free movement of workers and, more precisely, under the article concerned with the rights of self-employed workers.
There was good reason why the treaty base for the posted workers' directive was not under the social provisions. It was because they would have given no competence to that directive. They would have given no competence to the directive because it went into such matters as pay. That would also be the case under the social protocol because matters of pay fall outside the Community competence and of the social protocol as well.
Perhaps I may explain that the directive on posted workers which noble Lords did put under scrutiny was directed to the protection of workers who are nationals of one member state but move into another member state to work. If noble Lords were to look at Article 3 of the posted workers' directive they would see that Community competence is being created for maximum daily and weekly hours of work, rest periods, work on Sunday, night work, minimum paid holidays, minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates and allowances, but excluding benefits provided for by private occupational schemes.
846
While it did not have a treaty base under the social provisions, it is a directive which goes right to the heart of the social policy of the Community. In our Select Committee report we said that there were,
"serious objections to classifying matters such as maximum daily and weekly hours of work, work on Sundays, paid holidays and rates of pay as mandatory rules which must be applied to a posted workforce regardless of their agreement to the terms of a contract and regardless of the proper law of the employment contract".
That was the conclusion which we set out in our report. I remember we were also concerned—and certainly stated in the debate which my noble friend Lady Elles introduced on our report—that the directive was also anti-employment. It is because of that that I believe Her Majesty's Government are absolutely right to be concerned. As my noble friend Lord Reay has rightly said, social legislation in Europe is pricing people out of work. Therefore, I believe that Her Majesty's Government's stand is correct. At this stage we should resist the social provisions as contained in the Maastricht Treaty. That is not to say that we are against social policies. In the fullness of time I can see us adopting them, but not now.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did I hear him say—and if so, I am sure he said it correctly—that the matters to which he adverted relating to pay, Sunday pay and so forth, would not of course fall within the qualified majority provisions of the social chapter agreement and therefore are irrelevant as regards the discussion on that particular document?
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I did say that the directive had not been brought in under the social provisions because of the complication over pay. I illustrated that in my comments to your Lordships' House. But I also said that it went right to the heart of the social policy of the Community.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: The whole House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn for his masterly analysis of what the social protocol is about. The country has been bewildered by the Government's mounting hysteria. The persistence with which they have manufactured a non-crisis is unparalleled in my long political experience. The phraseology has become more and more extreme. The Prime Minister told us that the document is a charter for unemployment. David Hunt, the Secretary of State for Employment, said on Radio 4 today that it would destroy jobs, as though there were a great many crazed fanatics in Europe going about slashing jobs.
The situation has been very hard to grasp. One of the Government's latest excitements and excesses was the Prime Minister's declaration that the social protocol would take us back 20 years. My heavens, I wish it would. No doubt he was referring to the Wilson and Callaghan governments. In some of the Cabinet's secret sessions it must go down on its knees

847
and say, "Dear Lord, give us merely 1.3 million unemployed", which was the figure when we left office in 1979.
What would this Government say if they could produce a public sector borrowing requirement of £8.5 billion? They would say, "That is the great success of our anti-social charter policy". The Government are floundering under a public sector borrowing requirement of £50 billion.
Let us consider the balance of payments. It was in surplus by £1 billion in our last year in office before these great monetarists took over. Now there is a deficit to the tune of £4 billion. I cannot wait for the day when this Government chortle to us about the success they have achieved when they have got perhaps one-tenth of the way back to the position of strength in which we left the country. I find it astonishing that the Prime Minister should dare to say that the social protocol is a charter for unemployment. Who is he to talk, for heaven's sake? He and his predecessor resolulely turned their backs on any social charter for the past 14 years. Can anybody say that their success in dealing with unemployment has been blindingly obvious?
Let us get our feet on the ground. Let us try to grasp in this House this afternoon just what we shall be judged by when the vote takes place. I make no apologies for reading from the social protocol again because it is obvious that a large number of Members opposite have either not read it or are a little slow in catching up with this new test. Article 1 states:
"The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combatting of exclusion. To this end the Community and the Member States shall implement measures which take account of the diverse forms of national practices, in particular in the field of contractual relations, and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy".
Lord Carr said that we needed some flexibility. This protocol exudes flexibility. I think that it was Lord Aldington who said—I do not think that any honourable Member opposite dare say for a moment that there is anything wrong with the aims of the protocol. They say, "That is not our case". The aims are very reputable and nobody could disagree with any of them, although somebody did try to say that they did not want a dialogue between management and workers, but then there are some Conservative Members who would stop at absolutely nothing.
The Government have said, "We want to do it ourselves". It would be very nice if they did. Perhaps one of the speakers from the other side who is to follow me will give us a detailed list of what progress towards these aims has been made during the past 14 years. After all, the Government have had untold bonuses that we never had when we were in government. They have had billions and billions of pounds from North Sea oil, to say nothing of the yield from selling the family silver, with which process they are still bailing themselves out.
It does not happen under Conservative governments. but as far as governments are concerned, we say this, "Yes, we are conscious of the need to remain
848
competitive". That is why I, who, as I think some of you know, have had my criticisms of the European' Community, jump at the Social Charter. It is the sort of thing that it ought be giving us—because what could be more to our benefit than to have all our 11 major competitors toeing the same line? Do not forget: we are constantly reminded how much of our trade is now with Europe. I believe that the figure is 60 per cent., explaining why we are tied so deeply in to Europe. Okay, if it is so important to our trade, it is vitally important that, if we in this country want to have social standards such as I quoted from Article 1, we should take the rest of the Community with us. Be thankful that they want to tie their own hands—if tying their hands it is—in the same way.
However, that does not strike a chord at all with honourable Members opposite. They say, "Look at the small print. We don't want to be dictated to by Brussels. We don't want to have these things imposed on us by Brussels". By using that word "Brussels", they are very good at using subliminal propaganda: "Brussels" means "bureaucracy". I shall tell you who will implement Article 1: the Council of Ministers—12 member states.
As Lord Wedderburn brilliantly pointed out to us, there is no great incursion of qualified majority under the social protocol. It is a list. It is no good hinting that there might be this directive or that directive. We are being asked to sign this document, not something in the fevered imaginations of Members opposite. As Lord Wedderburn told us, the number of items which will be covered by qualified majority is very modest. I shall not read them out again because you can reread his speech, and you will be much. the wiser at the end of it.
What I want to point out to you is this: even taking the items covered by "qualified majority", what does it mean? The "qualified majority" means a two-thirds majority out of 74 votes because the votes of all the member states are weighted according to their size. So we have to have 56 votes out of 74. Britain is one of the big boys; we have 10 votes. If we object to something, all that we have to do is to get 13 more votes on our side, and it is not carried. I have heard a lot tonight about how Germany is straining at the leash and about how President Kohl wants to break loose from all the restrictions and social minutiae. Here is his opportunity. He has 10 votes. Give us Britain and Germany and throw in Denmark, and the qualified majority is bust. Of course, the major part comes under the rule still of unanimity or does not appear at all.
While listening to the debate, I have been thinking back to my own period as Minister of Employment when I introduced equal pay. There would have been no equal pay if honourable Gentlemen opposite had pursued the arguments that noble Lords have used today. Indeed, some people produced such arguments then. I must be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Carr. He did not do that when he was shadowing. They did not dare to do that because women are the majority of voters, are we not? I noted in my diary in September 1969 when I was preparing the legislation: have a meeting with CBI on equal pay. They came in

849
breathing fire and slaughter. I was told that equal pay would ruin Britain. I was told, "Think of the number of firms with women workers. We won't be competitive". With that criterion one can stop every bit of social progress in its wake because it is built on a great piece of monetarist mythology.
This debate is not really about the kind of Europe that we shall have but about the kind of Britain that we shall have. Are we going to be dominated by "Bangkok Hilton" politics, in which the monetarist masters will deal savagely with any attempt to smuggle in a few social modifications to the market economy? That is really the issue. The British people know instinctively that this is a test.
In conclusion, I must say this: I was in the House of Commons for 34 years and on the Front Bench for eight of them. I have seen a remarkable sea change in British conservatism. Until 1979 you could have a dialogue with the political enemy. You could talk in a civilised way. You had values, and social ones. But since the reign of monetarism the Conservative Party is unrecognisable. Even people like the noble Lord, Lord Carr, whom I remember as a humane and—for a Tory—progressive Minister of Labour, are here defending an attack on the Social Charter. What has become of you all? It is frightening. It frightens me. It frightens the country. I hope that if we cannot convert any Members opposite, at least the message will go out to the country as to what the battle now raging between the two sides is all about.
7 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, last week I was able to agree with every word of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn. I fear that that is not repeated today. I have always been open about my dislike of the EEC, and these past weeks have made clear my opposition to the Maastricht extension of the Community and the European Union, but today I must address the Motion.
The nations which make up the Community have developed their social policies along differing lines. The social chapter can only put back the clock in the United Kingdom by virtue of upheaval, if for no other reason, with knock-on effects for commerce and employment that will damage the competitiveness of business and destroy jobs. The horrific potential costs alone will do that.
The more I consider the matter, the more I feel that subsidiarity should apply, even if we adopt broad principles new to us. The emotional appeal appears to blind opposition parties to the reality that the imposition of social European provisions on our commerce and industry can eventually only harm those whom they claim to champion—sand from whom they will get no thanks when reality unfolds and the straitjacket of bureaucratic institutionalism is imposed on us.
I note that Chancellor Kohl has already announced what looks like an intention to breach the social chapter by calling on his countrymen to work additional hours for nothing. Might one be tempted to anticipate that it will be more breached than observed
850
and fall into disrepute? In-trays laden with costly and frequently futile EEC regulations are an irksome fact of commercial life. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has, I read, declared war upon red tape, but not even he can staunch the flood from Brussels when the Government are no longer master in their own house. Like parasitic ivy, the EEC's tendrils have invaded the nooks and crannies of our national and commercial life. Fortified with social chapter regulations, with a dose of Maastricht fertiliser and a good dollop of Euro-manure in 1996, it will threaten to destabilise our democratic way of doing things and cost us dear.
As a Maastricht opponent, and contemplating how I should vote today, I had a conversation with myself and isolated some notions. The first was why bother with the opt-out if you are to swallow the Union? If you are selling your birthright for a mess of potage, it is pointless saying, "No turnips, please". It will not detract from the finality of the bargain, but it may save a little indigestion.
The second thought went the other way. It said, Maastricht is bad enough, so why be masochistic and pile on social chapter agony? The third said, it is misguided to think that embracing the social chapter makes us better Europeans when thereafter we shall be forced to resist implementation of detailed provisions. I make that two to one against the social chapter.
I referred just now to the quality of Europeanism. That we have arrived at our present situation is sad. On Third Reading of the European Communities Bill, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said:
"Nothing could be worse for this country than to pass into the Community half-heartedly, churlishly or supiciously". —[Official Report, 20/9/72; col. 1268.]
My noble and learned friend's advice could be appropriately applied to the Union and the new EC. No one could deny that there is half-heartedness and suspicion abroad in the land, and, unfortunately, the social chapter opt-out leaves the Government's position open to question in the eyes of some, even if that is unfair.
Unless the Cabinet can find the courage to call for an early return to the European drawing board, I fear that we shall have bad times and soured Community relationships ahead due largely to problems over social Europe. Opposed as I am to Maastricht, I am not one to stand on my head. I must therefore abstain or support the Government. I have convinced myself that I shall do the latter tonight.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand how those who voted in favour of the Third Reading of the Europeans Communities (Amendment) Bill can now express anxiety about the social chapter. Their position, logically, should enable them to embrace the rule of Brussels on whatever aspect of our national life it descends. It is, after all, difficult to disentangle social provision from many other aspects, as indeed the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, illustrated. My own feeling, for what it is worth, is not so much that noble Lords on this side of the House have got themselves into a tangle—they got themselves into a

851
tangle when the Government first decided to bring forward the Bill—it is rather that they must recognise, as we must all recognise, that the opt-out upon which they rely heavily is a fiction.
I say that for two reasons. One of them was made evident in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who pointed out that, opt-out or not, there would be appeals to the European Court if we did not go along with the measures that might flow for the other eleven from the social chapter. His view was that the European Court would probably take that view. Knowing what we do about the European Court as an instrument of integration, he is almost certainly right. So, what we are doing in the opt-out may assist in domestic politics, but it is not likely, for long, to impede the imposition of the measures which so many noble Lords on this side of the House assure us are bad for British business.
The second reason, which has already been illustrated, is that many of the issues to which the Government would object will, if not introduced under the Social Charter, be introduced under other articles in the Treaty of Rome and the treaty as now amended. In an earlier debate I raised the attempted introduction under health and safety provisions of limitations on the hours of work. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber when the Minister replied, or those who have read Hansard, will already know the Government's reply. It was, first, that we had argued our way into a less undesirable measure than the original directive. My reply to that would be that if one directive had been introduced and watered down by British opposition there would be no reason to believe that another directive closer to the desires of other members of the Community would not in due course be introduced.
The second argument put forward by the Government was that, subsequent to the agreement on the directive, we had taken the case to the European Court. For the reason I have already given, that seems to be a very weak defence of our position because, once again, the European Court is unlikely to find favour of something which limits the capacity of the Community to legislate.
The Government will face problems of that kind. I do not believe that anyone who has read any of the recent speeches of Continental statesmen or commissioners can doubt that we shall face attempts to implement such regulations. My view is that if they come before a meeting of Ministers under an article which is clearly remote from the substance—if under the umbrella of health and safety they try to regulate on issues which like working hours have nothing to do with that—the proper procedure for Her Majesty's Ministers would be to walk out of the meeting. They should say, "We cannot discuss something which is on the face of it illegal". The policy of the empty chair served General de Gaulle very well and at some point it might serve us very well.
Perhaps that answers the question which has been puzzling me throughout the debate. Why did the other 11 agree to the opt-out? It has been suggested that it was the result of a complicated bargain into which other aspects of Community policy entered. Until we
852
have open government which goes well beyond the recent White Paper we shall never know whether that is true. However, we cart now say that the other 11 countries did not much mind because, for the reasons that I have given, they knew that they would get their way in the end and so the British could he allowed to have their moment of triumph. It is not a pretty picture, but noble Lords who supported Maastricht must not expect pretty pictures.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I rise conscious of the fact that we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, a remarkable presentation of her and her party's case in favour of the retention of the social chapter in the Maastricht Treaty. As a not very political person I am a little fearful in saying that I believe that we should resist the social chapter. I am also conscious of the fact that I have had many conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I am a great admirer of all that he says. However, I am not at one with him either.
I shall be brief in explaining my reasons because time is running on and dinner is passing. Over the years I have had many long conversations with young people from Europe. I am thinking in particular of young people from five countries in the Community who have been in my house. It has been clear to me that on the whole they are full of admiration for the development of social policy in this country. It has run through the 19th century, to Lloyd George, to the Master of University College, Oxford, Lord Beveridge, and all the developments which came from the social legislation of the Labour Party after the war. It was made clear to me by them that our social policy has been much more flexible, empirical and understanding of the individual than that which existed in their own countries. They were fearful of the legislation which applied to them as young people and felt that it was rigid and awesome. Perhaps that was as a result of the civil servants who executed it. I do not: know.
I start with the belief that among younger people the arrangements embodied in the social chapter, which have been so exemplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and others, are not completely acceptable to the people in other countries who will have to live with them. I speak from experience of my sample of young people, which does not mean to say that it is as complete or as compelling as the statistics, from the OECD.
Furthermore, a problem is that the social chapter is likely to impinge on the people whom I have always wanted to protect the most; that is, those who are concerned with the pursuit of excellence. I find that those people are most uncomfortable when they are involved with regulations such as those which arise under the social chapter. One of the great sovereign rights of our people is the opportunity to pursue excellence and, if the need arises, to develop new inventions. I do not believe that the people in the small firms with which I have been involved are greatly

853
moved by regulations which reflect time and motion study and so forth. We must try to allow intuitive and inventive people to be as free as possible.
I grew up in Birmingham near the motorcycle industry. I am sorry that the Government Chief Whip, who has an interest in motorcycles, is not in the Chamber to share some of my experiences. I considered that the smaller companies with which I was involved could do without impedances to their inventiveness. I know of a small company in Stechford, the area of Birmingham from which I took my name, in which about 100 people developed motorcycles—thus my anxiety to speak to the Chief Whip. It won races in the Isle of Man and won Grands Prix in general and was carried along with the terrific morale of competing in international contests. I felt then, as I feel now, that we must be terribly careful to leave those people free to develop competitively. In fact, that particular motorcycle had a two-stroke engine. The main problem which the company had to combat was the overheating of the engines during races. Who would have thought—I certainly would not have thought—that that ability to avoid overheating would mean that that little engine could be used in the portable generators which our forces used all over the world during the various campaigns which we conducted in World War II? That was so because those engines could continue to purr away all night without seizing up.
Your Lordships may ask whether that is relevant to the social chapter. I feel that it is because I want people who invent such things to be given a free rein and not feel that factories and industries are in any way impeded by European developments.
The Engineering Employers Federation has been telling us for some time that our manufacturing base—our small and large factories—has been shrinking. I have no doubt that that is associated with the recession which we have experienced. However, one of the things that I felt was good about the Prime Minister's drive to try to delay the acceptance of the social chapter is that it left us much freer with our employment regulations so that our small industrial base would be better able to seize the opportunities for selling its products when the recession is over and we are facing the rest of the world's competition, in particular that of the Pacific rim. There are fewer places of work but there is an opportunity to employ people vigorously in those different small and large factories.
I am not sure that the individual points which I have made are likely to carry your Lordships. I merely give them to the House to explain why, under the circumstances this evening, I feel that I must support the Government's intentions.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords, particularly those on this side of the House, will have great sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said. We note with great pleasure some of his observations.
854
I should like to make a brief comment on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, is in his place but I do not see his name on the list of speakers. Therefore, as a modest Member of the Select Committee dealing with the European Community's affairs which is chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that we have already published one report on social policy after Maastricht. I am quite certain that the Select Committee will continue to look at social policy issues when the Commission issues its Green Paper later this year. Therefore, like many other noble Lords, although I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in principle, I believe that it is unnecessary because part of it has already been implemented and, as I understand it, the rest will be implemented later.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is not in his place because I see that on the sixth day of our Committee deliberations, on 30th June at col. 887 of the Official Report, he read through a whole lot of issues which are tabled in the social policy agreement and said repeatedly, "I think we agree that". One of those issues concerned dialogue between management and labour.
Those of us who happened to be in the European Parliament in the early 1980s, when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was an extremely distinguished commissioner appointed by the United Kingdom Government, will recall that we were dealing with a draft directive under the name of the Vredeling. That dealt with co-determination, worker participation and consultation between workers and management. Although many people do not think much of the European Parliament, I can say with the greatest satisfaction that that particular directive was totally decimated by the European Parliament as being quite unacceptable to any of the member states within the Community.
Consequently, when one sees those headings repeated in the agreement on social policy, all the dread returns at the thought of having to deal with the kind of directive with which we had to deal with for at least a year in the European Parliament with the co-operation of the many parties within the parliament.
It is nothing to do with not having co-operation between management and labour. Recent studies undertaken in the Thames Valley area have proved that one of the essentials of success for small businesses is total co-operation between management and labour. In fact, there is a kind of blending of the two so that it is very difficult to tell, quite properly, which is the manager and which is the labour force because they work together with a common purpose. That has been shown to be successful.
I believe that that is why so many small businesses in the Thames Valley area have survived the recession and have established a strength in order to take up and benefit from the opportunities which will now accrue as we come out of the recession. One of the ways in which that can be proved is that the unemployment

855
rate for Berkshire, in the Thames Valley area, is well below the national average. It has been up to 7.8 per cent., which is well below the national average, and is now declining to 7.4 per cent. That shows that the small businesses in that area have made a great contribution towards trying to keep unemployment low. As I say, the studies of best practice in those small companies show that one of the main reasons for that success and ongoing business has been that question of communication. Therefore, we do not need legislation or anything from Brussels in that regard.
I must say in passing that it was a remarkable and, indeed, histrionic speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. I am sorry that she is not in her seat. That brought back many memories for me of the time when Brussels and qualified majority voting were not among her favourite subjects. Therefore, it is a great pleasure to hear her in the House of Lords speaking in favour of Brussels and qualified majority voting.
On this side of the House—and my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley expressed it so well—we believe that there is a social dimension. You cannot divorce economic policy or any other policy from a social dimension because everything depends on people. If your Lordships look at the lists which have been published, over and over again the United Kingdom has one of the best records in implementing health and safety regulations and directives and all the 18 directives concerned with social issues which have been recently published. We have as good a record as France or Germany and a considerably better record than any of the other member states.
I regret the rather negative approach which noble Lords opposite have had to some of the statistics concerning our social security benefits. I ask your Lordships why it is that so many people are coming to this country from the Continent precisely in order to benefit from our social security measures. Those people are greeted at the airport with brochures in many languages which tell them how to obtain housing benefit, national health services, unemployment and invalidity benefit—all the benefits which are given quite properly to the people of the United Kingdom. If those benefits are so poor, why do so many people come to this country and not stay in their own countries?
Similarly, there has been a slight neglect of the fact that this country is the one country—and this is recognised in all the European Community reports—which is coming out of the recession. We have the lowest rate of inflation except for Denmark. We have the highest decrease in unemployment figures of any of the Community countries. We should recognise that this country is well on the way to recovery while, regrettably, other countries in the Community are going clown. Indeed, if we have such appalling statistics, why is it that other countries are investing more in the United Kingdom than any other country of the Community? it is not just that we are benefiting at the expense of other member states. I believe that it should he pointed out—I do not think that any other speaker has done so—that the UK is the highest investor in other member states throughout the Community. We invest more in outward investment
856
than any other member state both within and outside the European Community. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. If the agreement is so wicked, does she not think it curious that we should be so keen to invest in countries which do accept the Agreement on Social Policy?
Baroness Elles: Absolutely, my Lords; the social policy has not yet come into effect. Noble Lords would no doubt be very surprised if any of the measures that are listed in the social policy agreement ever come into effect. If one reads the reports coming out of Brussels, even M. Delors (who I know some people consider a bogyman, but for whom I must say I have a personal affection and regard having known him for so long in the European Parliament) is himself doubting whether some of the issues contained in the social policy agreement will be those which will be needed to create jobs. It is the creation of jobs that is needed both for this country and other member states. At last, everyone is now recognising that unemployment is the greatest social and economic problem within the European Community, as well as the cost of productivity in relation to our competitiveness with other parts of the world.
All I can see in conclusion is that I feel very regretful that the Opposition has given, so far as I can see, no enlightenment to show that the social policy will improve our unemployment position. Indeed, I have not heard any speaker give one solid reason why or how unemployment will decrease as a result of the social policies. It is our experience over the years that such measures will not work. I strongly support the Government and the Government's Motion. I very much hope that it will be passed.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the debate this afternoon has produced some very excellent speeches which will read well to any students who may bother to read them to try to understand the history of these particular years. However, we in this House ought to recognise where we are and what the debate is all about. Anything to do with Maastricht and the Common Market was settled last week. The present debate has nothing to do with it. Clearly, we are returning, once again, to good old party politics. There are party manoeuvrers who have in mind the possible results of the next election which really have nothing to do with the operating of the effects of Maastricht in a way which some of the speeches seem to imply.
Both sides have been guilty in the latter respect. The Government side in the other place made a great mistake. Because they thought that they might be defeated in a vital stage of the Maastricht debate, they conceded a Motion to the Labour Opposition to enable the present debate to take place. That will have the effect, under certain circumstances, of delaying the actual operation of Maastricht, despite the fact that the Bill we passed—which has now become an Act—went through all the parliamentary stages in both

857
Houses, received Royal Assent and, to all intents and purposes, should now have all the power of being effective and being a policy for the nation.
The Government conceded that Motion in order to ensure the winning of that vote at that time, and confusion followed as regards the legal effect of allowing the social protocol to be included. I gather that it was the Foreign Office lawyers who said it might or might not have any effect and then the Attorney-General was brought in. However, because of that confusion we are now in a position of having enacted the Maastricht Bill, thus giving it all the powers of an Act, before it could be put into operation. I think that we should approach the debate as a matter of being back again to party politics.
The most cynical manoeuvre that I have ever seen in the 43 years that I have served in either House of Parliament was the decision of the Labour Opposition on Third Reading to abstain on the vote. Having been keen partners and having played their part in the way that they did to help the Government get through many aspects of the Maastricht Bill—which, to my mind, ought not to have been got through—when it came to the vital issue, it was quite clear that they were not all that interested in the Maastricht Act in its entirety and that they still had in mind the desire to grasp all the party-political kudos that they could by claiming to be the champions of the social protocol. They tried to argue that they are the only ones who will ensure, out of any future prosperity we may have, that any benefits will be shared by everyone.
We had a perfect example in the most effective speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. The noble Baroness and I are about the same age. I should like to point out that she on the Labour side and myself on the Conservative side have been active in party politics over exactly the same period of time. People who did not know the noble Baroness before she came to this place were able to see today what a formidable debater she is. Of course, we have known it for years. Indeed, we saw her over all her years in the other place being most effective both as a Member and as a Cabinet Minister. She used all of those powers of persuasion to suggest in her speech today that the Conservative Government could not be trusted to ensure that any benefits that may flow will be shared by the rank and file of this country.
Noble Lords will no doubt remember the point she made. She made a challenge that I should like to meet. She said, "Will someone tell me what benefits along the lines that I am now describing have ever come from a Conservative Government over the past 14 years?" She confined the period to 14 years. My recollection of the 14 years in terms of the general state of the people in the country as I know them is that it is infinitely better than it was in 1979. Moreover, our future prospects are more rosy than they were in 1979. We have nothing to apologise for as regards those 14 years.
However, as I said, both the noble Baroness and I were arguing such political points long before the war and certainly through the various elections. I challenge my recollections against hers; that is, not
858
over 14 years but over the whole period of our lives in politics which, as I said, is about equal. The noble Baroness is the one who claims to have had the practical contact with those whom she calls the rank and file people of the country and suggested that the Tories did not know anything about them.
The fact that I am a Baron and sometimes wear a monocle is often thrown at me. One is supposed not to have made a failure of one's life in terms of one's general ways of living. However, the truth is that I am the son of a Staffordshire miner. I pit my life's experience with that as my base against that of the noble Baroness as regards the challenge that she issued. I should like to challenge her to look at the general advancement and general state of living of the people of this country over the period of our lives. If one looks at it when a Conservative Government was in power and examines it in the sort of detail available—whether it is a matter of wages, working conditions and general understanding of health and safety needs—we have a record which is infinitely higher and better than anything that the Opposition can produce during the periods that they were in office.
That is all by the way. That is what this is about. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who has longer experience than any of us, raised a matter which we ought to keep in mind in order to justify my point. We are now back to party politics. Because it is a matter of party politics I shall be in the Government Lobby tonight, despite the points that I have made concerning the details of the Maastricht Treaty.
The noble Lord reminded us—perhaps some noble Lords never knew or had forgotten—that Jacques Delors came over to talk to the Trades Union Congress. Until that time the Labour Opposition had been vehemently opposed to anything connected with the European Community. It was not a U-turn; it was an about-turn with a vengeance. It occurred overnight, following the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, told us about.
What caused that about-turn? At that meeting, both in private and in public, Jacques Delors told his socialist friends that they would never get socialism through Westminster. He said that they would achieve socialism through Europe. The social protocol is part of the delivery of socialism through Europe which he promised them in order to obtain that about-turn. It was at that time that we saw this great change. The Labour Party feels that it is good tactics and it is duty bound to draw as much attention as possible to its claim to be the proponent of good living for the people and the only party which can produce it.
If there is any good in the Maastricht Treaty or in the Treaty of Rome, if good can flow from the social protocol, as it is claimed, then, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham explained, we have the subsidiarity powers. Those are powers which we can use at home to bring these things about if we feel that they are desirable. Many of them are desirable.
As I understand it from the speeches which we have heard from the Benches opposite, it is suggested that we can only achieve those benefits by accepting the social protocol. I have more confidence in the trade union organisations in this country. I am a great

859
believer in trade unions. Just as trade unions have produced good in the past through collaboration with Conservative governments, they are the ones whom I would like, under subsidiarity, to bring about the improvements in living conditions which I believe would be available. I do not want people in Brussels, Strasbourg, Greece or anywhere else to lay down the rules as to how we should develop any skills, ability and wealth that we might have. We can do that better ourselves. I believe that the trade unions and the governments which we are capable of producing can bring about benefits through the subsidiarity powers which my noble and learned friend told us about.
On this issue we should not feel that we have to discuss Europe any more. We are back in good old party politics. That is the driving force on the other side of the House. It was mistakes in party politics which led my right honourable friend to allow this debate to take place before the treaty, which is now an Act, could be ratified. It is on that basis that I feel that it is my duty to go into the Lobby in support of the Government, and I shall do so with joy.
7.44 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken is one of the most forceful and sincere speakers in the House, but sometimes it is hard to follow his drift. In spite of his eloquence I am not sure whether he is in favour of Maastricht. Is he in favour of Maastricht?
Lord Harmar-Niicholls: No, my Lords, I am not.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, therefore, in spite of all his crap—I am sorry, I mean all his words—about party loyalty and so on he is not a very good exa:mple of party loyalty. He is above party. Therefore, I am not sure why he is sitting on those Benches. Why is he not on the Cross-Benches?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am speaking. The noble Lord has had his say. The noble Lord is repudiating his leader. He is a traitor to the Conservative cause. I was that once, so I understand his position very well. It is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord.
I strongly support the Social Charter. I do not think that he can really believe this, but the noble Lord who has just spoken gave the impression that this is some sort of party manoeuvre. Does he not realise that anyone who calls themselves a member of the Labour Party, or even a Liberal, regards it as disgraceful that we are unable to set out to do as much for our working people as the other countries in Europe. It is a disgrace. I hope that the noble Lord understands that. This is not a position which has suddenly sprung up. Our position is based on a deep philosophical approach.
There are three, or more, ways of looking at the social chapter. One may say that it is of no importance. That would be a difficult line for any Conservative to take because the present Prime Minister, who is admired by so many of his colleagues but not, it seems, by the noble Lord who has just
860
spoken, has claimed the exclusion front the Social Charter as a triumph. If it is of no significance that is nonsense, but I would not like to accuse the present Prime Minister of being nonsensical. There are enough accusations which I could level against him without that. Therefore, we must treat the Social Charter as important.
If one considers it important, one can regard the exclusion of this country as of great value, as the Prime Minister sees it, or one can see it as damaging and morally disgraceful. If one wants to understand the point of view of the Conservative Party—and I must take off my glasses to read this—one must consider a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I take it that he is still regarded as a Conservative. He sits on the Conservative ex-ministerial Bench and he was a Cabinet Minister. I tried to tell him that I would quote him but could not find him today. The noble Lord said:
"In other words, progress on social policy has reached the point where it is imposing a burden that cannot be borne without doing serious economic damage".—[Official Report, 30/6/93; col. 895.]
Either one thinks that that is absolute nonsense or one accepts it.
That takes me back to the old days of the Beveridge Report. I was assistant to Sir William Beveridge for three years. I am glad to think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, supported that report, unlike, I am afraid, the great Sir Winston Churchill. I drew up an appendix to the main report. In those days in this country we were ahead of all the European countries in terms of social legislation. Where are we now? We are certainly not in the lead. Perhaps we are somewhere in the middle. In social legislation we have slipped a long way down in the European league.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, expressed the view that we cannot afford this kind of legislation. He believes that the whole thing has gone too far. We were told earlier by my noble friend Lord Richard, in his effective opening speech, that, as others have pointed out during the debate, the gap between the rich and poor has increased steadily during the past 14 years. We were told not so long ago in a government publication that the average standard of living is perhaps one-third higher than it was 14 years ago. We were also told that the standard of living of the poor was 14 per cent. lower. That statement was welcomed by a Conservative Minister. We regard it as a detestable result of 14 years. That is our approach. We do not take the Cockfield approach. We believe the opposite.
We believe that there should be more redistribution in favour of the poor. We believe that there should be more social legislation. But if other people say, "We cannot afford it", then we have to listen to them. In a sense we can do nothing about them except pray for them. That is about the best that we can manage. In one sense it is a straight party issue. People on the Conservative side tend to take one view; people on the progressive side—I use that expression to cover the Labour and Liberal Parties—take another.
I came to the House recently to vote on an amendment on the social chapter at the same time as an eminent man in business—one of the business

861
leaders of this country. I did not have to ask him which way he was going to vote. He did not have to ask me which way I was going to vote. In that sense, therefore, it is a straightforward division. Those who favour the extreme Conservative point of view vote against the social chapter; on the progressive side we vote in favour of it.
However, I draw attention to another possibility. I was reading again a good book on the life of Lord Shaftesbury. In case some noble Lords have not read it, perhaps I may remind you that it is a first-class account of someone who was a great Conservative but also the main promoter of factory legislation in the 19th century. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, knows the period particularly well. There are interesting aspects that I had forgotten. When I read the book again, I noted that Shaftesbury was very sharp in his comments on people. For example, he ascribed to Peel, the Conservative Leader, "a singular and marked malignity". That is plain speaking. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, does not seem to admire Mr. Major, but I am sure that he would not accuse him of a singular and marked malignity.
I am bound to say that Shaftesbury was fairly unpleasant about other leaders. He described John Bright, the Quaker, who was a factory owner, as swinish. Shaftesbury spoke more bluntly than people speak in this House in these latter days. Nevertheless, as time has passed, Shaftesbury has been accepted into the Conservative pantheon. Recently the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was praising him. I ventured to suggest that Lord Shaftesbury was not representative of the Conservatives. I was slapped down in the best King's College, Cambridge, manner for even making that suggestion. However, the fact is that Shaftesbury was regarded as an outsider, but a very aristocratic one. In the end the Conservatives accepted him; they are very proud of him. He was a great Conservative reformer.
I look around the Chamber and wonder how many Shaftesburys we have on the Government Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is no longer present. But she is almost a female Shaftesbury, with great potentiality. Before the debate ends, I should like to believe that someone will rise to say, "We also believe in the working classes and in improving their conditions".
7.52 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am afraid I feel compelled to speak briefly against the positions taken by all three Front Benches. Of the three, I am relieved to say that I find the Government's position marginally less untenable than those of the Labour and Liberal parties, but still untenable. The Labour and Liberal Parties wish to import the social chapter into British law, together with the rest of the unfortunate Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht. So open an act of folly should obviously be rejected.
But the social chapter is not the worst part of the union treaty in my view. The treaty's establishment of a European Union, whose brave new citizens will enjoy rights but no corresponding duties; its
862
reinforcing of the "irreversibility" of progress to ever-closer union; its strengthened so-called economic and social cohesion, which will give increased aid from richer to poorer countries in an absurd attempt to create level playing fields, which are the antithesis of any market known to man; its meaningless and therefore worthless subsidiarity clause; and perhaps above all, the sheer folly of its central plank, its proposals for economic and monetary union—all those provisions of the union treaty seem to me much more misguided and dangerous than the social chapter which is the subject of these amendments tonight. I appreciate that the Government have a theoretical opt-out from final monetary union, but as we have discussed in our recent debates, the value of that opt-out is in doubt to some of us.
Since the Government are so determined to have the rest of the union treaty, I therefore find it hard to understand why they dislike the social chapter so much that they want to opt out of it. I say that because I fear that even if the Government win their amendment tonight here, and in another place, they will still be exposed to the social chapter's effects. I say that because even if we manage to avoid the social chapter itself wholesale, the Community is already firing at us piecemeal the legislation to which the Government object and about which they can do nothing under the provisions of the Single European Act. By way of example, I could quote the Acquired Rights Directive—we have already imported it into our trade union law—the 48-hour week, works councils and young people at work. I imagine that the Government may say that they can appeal to the European Court of so-called Justice in Luxembourg against these measures being forced upon us by qualified majority vote under the health and safety provisions of the Treaty of Rome. I am among many who have little faith in that court because it strikes us merely as the engine of the treaty and not a court of justice as we understand the meaning of the words.
In case some of your Lordships might think that I exaggerate, I should perhaps give you one firm example. I should tell you that your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, on which I have the honour to sit, published a report only last week entitled, "Protection of Young People at Work". It refers to the proposed directive from Europe. In it your Lordships will find on page 4, if you care to look, the record of our conversation with my honourable friend Mr. Michael Forsyth, the Minister of State for Employment. He had confirmed that the Government are rightly opposed to the provisions of the Young People at Work Directive, which is just about as idiotic a piece of interfering nonsense as even the European Commission can think up. But I suggested to Mr. Forsyth that there was nothing we could do about it because it was coming at us under a qualified majority vote, which presumably we had lost, and that what I had described as the worthless subsidiarity clause would not help us either.
I can but quote Mr. Forsyth's answer which I believe confirms what I am saying precisely. Referring to the Young People at Work Directive he stated:

863
"I think you [have] asked the key question and the answer is bluntly that it is subject to qualified majority voting. That is of course in part because of the choice of legal base which we say on the face of it is rather difficult to explain".
That is presumably what the Government will be appealing to Luxembourg about. He continued:
"As to the point about subsidiarity, there are a number of issues concerning our Department which will be, I would imagine, likely to be on the agenda for the next meeting. This is one of them. Working time is another. The Acquired Rights Directive, which will not be on the agenda, and the European Works Councils Directive are two more. In all these areas there are arguments about the extent to which the measures are appropriate and with the exception perhaps of European Works Councils Directive subsidiarity is a major part of the Government's argument and there is amongst Member States a widely differing view as to what subsidiarity means and how it can be implemented … Member States' minds … are concerned that the United Kingdom has a competitive advantage in terms of inward investment within the Community because we have taken a deregulatory approach to the labour market and many of them have an agenda which is concerned with ensuring that we are put in the same position as they are, in respect of social costs and employment costs, and therefore the subsidiarity argument is not always well received. All we can do, given that it is subject to majority voting, is to try and persuade our partners to take on board these arguments and not proceed, but at the end of the day you are right: it is subject to qualified majority vote".
That is the Minister of State for Employment in another place speaking to your Lordships' Select Committee.
Your Lordships will notice that Mr. Forsyth also makes another point for me—my final point you will be pleased to hear. This is that other member states are already angry at what they see as our competitive advantage because we have taken a deregulatory approach to the labour market. So I must put it to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if our opt-out from the social chapter works to our advantage, as the Government claim it will, the other member states may get even more angry. Of course, lurking in the background are Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome which forbid unfair competition within the Community. Surely it cannot be long before the Community attempts to use those clauses against us if our opt-out is going to prove as successful as the Government claim it will.
So I am afraid that our opt-out from the social chapter is not much more than a fig leaf. I am afraid that the wind from Europe is blowing rather strongly and we are going to get what is coming anyway. In these circumstances, I shall abstain on all the Motions tabled, in disgust at the entire process.
8 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, the House is approaching the Summer Recess and I recommend for holiday reading a rather delightful book by Gerald Kaufmann called How to be a Minister. It is clear that in her entertaining and dynamic speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, used much of what Gerald Kaufmann says in that book: when you are making a case, try to omit the importan1 things, be selective and finish up with a loud "Rah rah". If I may say so, that is what the. noble Baroness did. She was selective in talking of the wonderful times there were during that period. Like my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I saw the noble Baroness in action down the corridors. I notice
864
that she did not mention the way in which the then Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Healey, had to go running back from Heathrow to meet the demands of the International Monetary Fund. There was no comment on that, so not all was as rosy as the noble Baroness would have us believe.
I also have to say, as someone who had the honour of serving in a junior capacity in the first government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that I very much resented what the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, said about the sea change of the Tory Party since 1979 and people with no heart and no social conscience. I regard the privilege I had of helping to take through the mental health Act as a dynamic example of genuine belief in and understanding of social needs. I cannot refrain from saying that that kind of argument from the noble Baroness does not do whatever case she was trying to put forward much good.
There was also a comment from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who, in the chapters of social progress, seemed not to have heard of Benjamin Disraeli, who probably did more for what he called the working classes than any other Prime Minister before or since. However, there was no mention of him.
It is clear, certainly to rite, that the social chapter is a recipe for unemployment. It is clear from the bulk of speakers on the Opposition Benches, exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that they have little practical experience of business. The social chapter is the brainchild of those who wish to centralise and make every country conform to what is inherently socialism. The noble Lord. Lord Houghton, reminded us of the sudden conversion of. his party when. M. Delors came to talk to them.
However, of course, many of those countries who first espoused some of the ideas behind the social chapter are having second thoughts. Germany, for example, is now looking again at the maximum number of hours that people can work. That example may be followed by many others because it is impossible for Europe to continue as she is, with the growing competition not from Hong Kong, but from. China, the Philippines, Taiwan and so on. If Hong Kong is being priced out of the market, just think how much in Europe we are being priced out by our methods.
Most industrial and business experts and enterprises in the UK have spoken up firmly against the social chapter which they believe would damage irrevocably our competitiveness. All the European Community employer organisations have said exactly the same thing. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is not with us at the moment, but he has been here for most of the debate. He quoted from the CBI brief, again selectively. He referred to the argument that our tradition is to set employment conditions by individual or collective agreements, not to prescribe through legislation. He said how terrible that really was, that it would lock people into a particular industry instead of them being "allocated"—and I noted his word—where they can be more useful. That, I seem to remember, was the direction of labour that we had during the last war. ft does not sit well with me.

865
As one who has spent over 35 years in industrial relations and personnel management in one of Britain's major multinational companies, I do not believe that the social chapter is in the interests of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may add a personal note to what the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said. I too was at that conference when he spoke so eloquently on what was then the workers' charter and subsequently the industrial charter.
However, I think there is much more at stake here tonight. Of course, my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls is right. This is a blatant piece of political gerrymandering on the part of the Labour Party who thinks that this is the only way it can pull all its people together. It will have no effect because the public has seen through it. The public recognises what the Labour Party is trying to do. What the public does not yet understand is how there can be some Conservatives in another place who have espoused the philosophy of conservatism and yet could vote in a way this evening that could be the opposite of everything, not that they claim to believe in, but on which their voters elected them. That is what I find most upsetting.
I believe that the social chapter is something that we must not accept and we must battle hard. I understand the views of my noble friend Lord Pearson on the court. I share many of them, though not all. If we can put our case sufficiently well, based upon the evidence that we have, even that court would uphold any illegality or attempt to bring in items in the social chapter that were based upon the wrong articles in the Treaty of Rome. I hope that we shall pass the Government's Motion noting the policy with a large majority and reject the typical Liberal-Labour coalition which has bedevilled this country for 50 years, and reject their two amendments which have no merits at all.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it has been a long day and we have talked quite a lot about the social chapter and Maastricht. However, I think that the problems and issues are important enough for us not to begrudge spending so much time on them. If anything, the truth about Maastricht is that, boring though it may sound, not enough has been explained to people about the issues involved. Because those issues have been obscured and made boring, people have not realised that great matters are at stake.
First, as my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, explained, if anyone reads the protocol on the social chapter carefully, it is quite clear that in terms of matters which worry employers about wages, hiring and firing and the hard points about hiring labour, the social protocol does not have much to say. The social protocol establishes certain minimum conditions on health and safety, working conditions, non-discrimination etc. It cannot be shown—and I shall argue that in more detail in a minute—that the present level of unemployment in the OECD or the EC has anything to do with the social chapter because it has not yet come into effect. I shall
866
also show that following policies which are exactly the opposite of what the social chapter advocates—indeed, the policies so proudly followed by the present Government—has not done much to reduce unemployment. If anything, the exact opposite is the case.
Why then are we discussing the social chapter? It is innocuous. But a big monster has been made out of it. The Prime Minister is supposed to have said that it is a charter for socialism. How I wish that that were the case! I am afraid there is no such luck. It is a matter of party politics, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and other noble Lords said. But the party whose politics it relates to is not Labour or Liberal. It is the party opposite. The Prime Minister, before his term in that office, had a pro-European reputation. He was supposed to be the person responsible for having persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to join the exchange rate mechanism. Indeed, we were told that he was always, along with the Foreign Secretary, a pro-European. Upon becoming Prime Minister, his pro-European stance continued. He wanted to be at the heart of Europe. But given the divisions in the party opposite, he decided that it would pay him to act as a Euro-sceptic. Exaggeration of his Euro-sceptic stand finally led to the "great triumph" that he brought out of Maastricht; namely, two opt-outs. It has been shown, as all know, that the opt-out on economic and monetary union is not worth the paper that it is written on. Therefore, the opt-out on the social chapter became the only matter on which the Prime Minister could, as it were, pacify the opposition within his party, keep the divisions within his party at bay and hope to achieve some peace and quiet. Unfortunately, that policy has failed—as we shall find out soon enough in another place. The whole exaggeration of the possible effect of the social chapter has to do not with reality but with rhetoric, in order to bind the possible divisions in the party opposite.
So far as we are concerned on this side and on the Liberal side, we say again and again that if all these things are happening, and if all the employers are alarmed about the possible costs of the social chapter, how come all the other countries have not objected to the social chapter? How come 11 out of 12 have accepted and welcomed the social chapter? And how come that we are the only people who are against it? Is it to be argued that our deregulated labour market policies have been so marvellous that we have achieved high rates of employment?
I hate to say this, but unemployment, as recorded, has not gone down since the day the Labour Party lost office. It stood at 1,234,000 in 1979, and it has not fallen below that in all the past 14 years. Abolishing trade unions, workers rights and wages councils, all the nice Hayekian things that have been done—competition has been let loose—and all the great flexibilities that have been introduced, have done nothing to reduce unemployment. Unemployment has not been reduced despite several redefinitions. Even on the redefined basis, after 32 different changes of definition, unemployment remains very high in this country.

867
Two points could be made. First, it could be said that unemployment is high not because our policies have not worked—that the policies have indeed worked—but other things have happened which have kept unemployment high. If that is true, and if macro-economic forces rather than deregulation policies have kept unemployment high, then perhaps one could argue that the social chapter will also not be responsible for introducing unemployment; that other forces will be responsible. I do not believe that the argument can be made for all the great policies of labour market flexibility and so on. They may have influenced income distribution. I believe that that is the effect that they have had. But the effect that they have had is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. They did not do very much to reduce unemployment.
No doubt somebody will cite in reply the figures of employment creation. Employment creation can be defined in any way one likes. What emerges is that there is a category called self-employment, which is very flexible, and quite a lot of self-employed jobs have been created. But in unemployment, standardised numbers can be compared across countries. In the latest publication by the OECD, which came out yesterday, called Employment Outlook, noble Lords will see the truth of what I have said. There is not a single year since 1979 when measured unemployment in the UK has been less than it was in 1979. I believe that we can be agreed that policies which derogate from the mild policies prescribed in the social protocol will not help reduce unemployment.
Regarding reducing unemployment, my noble friend Lord Eatwell made a point with which many other people will agree. In this new era of global competition it is folly to imagine that we shall be able to compete with Hong Kong and China by reducing our wages, no matter how much flexibility is introduced, to the level of wages in those countries. What will create employment is to value the labour resource that we have and invest in it. We must consider policies on health, non-discrimination or employer-employee co-operation. Those policies are required as long-term investment, over and above other sorts of investment which will create long-term employment in this country. Long-term employment will not be created by hope of a wage cut. That hope has been tried for the past 14 years and it has not worked. What will create jobs is investment. If we are to create jobs with investment, we have to follow some sort of dynamic macro-economic policy. That would require a co-ordination at the European Community level if we are to get any success out of that policy.
Lastly, it will be clear to people who think about the modern economy that the driving force in the modern economy is the large multi-national corporations. If the large corporations which operate in different countries operate in any of the other 11 countries, they will follow the policies laid down in the social chapter. If one asks those corporations, they will see the logic of having some sort of uniformity among their employees, no mat ter where they are employed. That is the whole point of having the social protocol and having uniformity in it. If one is to have a single
868
market, a single economic area, and if one wants companies to operate across that area, one cannot ask those companies to follow one sort of policy in one country, and another sort of policy in another. That does not make any sense.
We should establish a dynamic European economy, a prosperous single market in labour and capital. We require the social protocol. It will not be true or even accurate to argue that these policies will be opposed by employers. Indeed, employers will welcome them. The social protocol is a very minimal price we ought to be willing to pay so that we can take part at. the heart o f Europe, and further the sort of dynamic macroeconomic policies that we need to increase employment in the long run.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords., before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to say this. He made much play of the fact that during the period of Conservative administration the level of unemployment never reached that of 1979. But has he not overlooked the fact that there was massive overmanning of nationalised industries which led to massive losses and subsidies which the consumers and taxpayers of this country had to meet? in other words., there was concealed unemployment, which was not good for the efficiency of manufacturing industry or the service industries dependent upon them.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. Several points could be made about that. Look at the cost to the taxpayer in subsidising all. that massive hidden unemployment. Let us ask whether, as a result of all the dynamic policies followed in the past 14 years, the burden of taxation has gone down. The burden of total taxes collected as a proportion of the GDP has not gone down. It has gone up. Let us see whether the growth rate has gone up over the long period of 1979 to 1993. We should not be selecting 1981 and abandoning 1990, which Ministers always seem to do. Over the long period 1979 to 1993 it cannot be argued that the growth rate of GDP has exceeded the growth rate in the 1970s. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, said, one cites the example of my noble friend Lord Healey going to the IMF, I can offer in exchange Black Wednesday. We all have our disasters.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, during the long hours that we spent in Committee and Report stage debating the Maastricht Bill, I learnt: one lesson, for which I am grateful to noble Lords who are better instructed than I am both in the Maastricht Treaty and preceding legislation. The lesson was that we delegated to Brussels very substantial powers in preceding years under preceding treaties, particularly the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. Any powers that we propose to delegate under the Maastricht Treaty, including those relating to the social protocol, are comparatively minor. If I were a Euro-sceptic, which I am not, I would say that we sold the pass years ago.
An interesting illustration of that is the discussion, indeed dispute, about the 48-hour minimum wage, which is in front of the European Court at the

869
moment. The case was brought under health and safety regulations to which the other 11 member states agreed under a preceding treaty. It made me ponder a little as to the scope of health and safety, when maximum working hours can be brought in under such a clause. With a little nudging and argumentation, could not most fields of social policy be brought in as well? As I said, the powers that we have already passed to Brussels are very substantial. The rather anodyne provisions of the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty seems to me to add comparatively little to the powers that have already been yielded.
We are all concerned about social costs. In this country we have our own problem. We have a £50 billion deficit, which we all know will result in cuts in certain areas of national expenditure. Where we think those cuts should fall is a matter of personal choice, but in the end it will be a government decision. Those social costs are already at a level which—certainly in recession—it appears we cannot sustain. In times of greater buoyancy in the economy maybe we can do so, but there is at least a case for saying that in 1993 (and perhaps into 1994) social costs are getting out of hand. It is a dismal thought perhaps but there is also the fact that our population is getting older and we must ask how far the younger workers can sustain us, old pensioners, at the level to which we have grown accustomed.
That is also happening to other countries which are our competitors and partners in Europe. Indeed, they are in a worse position because when they come to look at their national budgets and deficits, so far as social costs are concerned they start from a higher base. They pay more. They too will be looking critically at those costs and wondering whether cuts should not be made. When they come to consider our lower social costs, a measure of envy creeps in. Criticism is launched at us for what is known sometimes as "social dumping". They are not concerned about the well-being of the British worker or his level of pay, working hours and social benefits. They are concerned purely with commercial considerations. They are worried that they will have to pay more than we do in this country to produce the same product. For some time they have been putting pressure upon this Government and they will continue to do so. That pressure will increase. They will try to eliminate the social gap.
I do not believe that that has a great deal to do with the Maastricht Treaty or the social protocol. It is a form of pressure which has built up in the past and will become greater. It will be for the Government of the country to meet it as best they can. It is no direct consequence of Maastricht and the social protocol. It is simply a commercial advantage that we have and other powers in Europe will seek to erode it.
Having listened very carefully to the arguments, I am neutral on the subject of the social protocol. To some extent the arguments for and against cancel each other out. I am not so sure of the treaty itself. I am most anxious that it should be brought into law and implemented as speedily and quickly as possible. We have heard some talk of what might happen if,
870
unfortunately, the vote should go against the Government in another place. Various political manoeuvres have been dangled in front of us which I believe would only result in delay in the implementation of the treaty. Indeed, they might put at some risk the treaty itself. I am most anxious that that should not happen.
I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that, if the crunch should come and they must either accept the social protocol within the treaty or risk failure in the implementation of the treaty, they should take a deep breath and sign up. I do not believe that the nightmare that they fear will materialise in practice.
8.29 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, at this stage in the debate almost everything that needs to be said has in fact been said. Therefore I shall limit myself to two questions that have arisen regularly in the course of the whole debate on the treaty as well as today. I approach those questions as a supporter of the principle of subsidiarity, which I believe was admirably defined earlier this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
One of those questions is: since we already do many of the things required by the social chapter—indeed, some of the arguments for and against that we have heard today have grossly exaggerated the position—why cannot we then go that little bit further and embrace the social chapter, as our 11 partners have done? It is, I believe, because to do so is to ignore the concept of subsidiarity, which I thought that the parties opposite had welcomed in the course of the debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Act.
But nobody in proposing or supporting the amendments before us has convinced me that these are matters best dealt with at a European Community level rather than at a national level in accordance with each member state's different social structure. Nobody, not even the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, has shown how there is an added value for us in dealing with these matters at a European level, as I believe is the case in dealing, for example, with environmental matters or public health issues. My response is that if it is not necessary to do something, then it is necessary not to do it. If in the past we have done some unnecessary things, there is no reason for doing so again.
The second question that regularly crops up is: why on earth make a fuss over having a European framework? While we are going in for citizen's charters and others, why not also have a Social Charter? My answer is that we already have one. All the member states of the European Community are members of the Council of Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, reminded us yesterday, the Council of Europe has a Social Charter which we signed in 1976. That charter deals adequately with workers' rights and conditions of employment; indeed, it deals with most of the things for which it has been argued today we need to adopt the social protocol in order to achieve. I commend it to your Lordships and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the point I was trying to make is that we never do anything to implement that charter. Everything we have done since 1979 has denied its existence.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was coming to that. In saying that that is another reason why it is not necessary to adopt the social protocol, I would point out that currently the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe is working to give that Social Charter more teeth. It wants to make it more significant for those countries in central and eastern Europe which have recently become members and need the framework and standards prescribed by the charter in much the same way as they need the benefits of the Convention on Human Rights. To say that, notwithstanding the Social Charter, we as members of another club must adopt the social protocol, merely devalues the Social Charter for those countries. That would be unfortunate if we believe in the development of a peaceful and prosperous Europe beyond the limits of the present European Community.
For those reasons, as well as many others advanced by a number of my noble friends, I declare my support of the Government's Motion unamended.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am glad that we have largely avoided the political manoeuvring and posturing that the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, condemned and that this debate has concerned social and employment issues rather than tactics. I applaud that. I too shall concentrate on the merits, or otherwise, of the opt-out secured by the Prime Minister from the Agreement on Social Policy accepted by the other 11. My main theme is that we must get away from the idea that we are in a retrograde position—almost pariahs, as some implied—in the matter. I shall argue, on the contrary, that we are in the vanguard of European thinking on social and employment policy.
The social chapter, as it is generally labelled in the press and by some of your Lordships, is in fact an extremely complex web of social legislation which is being advanced under several rubrics and on a number of fronts. For example, the famous directive on the organisation of working time to which the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Elibank, referred and which we have resisted up till now is not covered by the Maastricht opt-out as it has been advanced under Article 118A of the original treaty. By an agreement reached in the Council on 1st June it appears that we shall be obliged to implement that within three years.
In the social protocol of the treaty the 11 agreed to continue along the path of the Social Charter of 1989 (which we did not sign) until all its provisions are completed and it becomes in effect acquis communautaire. In other words, what was merely declaratory becomes part of the immutable structure of the Community, and that was the degree of rigidity from which we opted out.
I confess that I started with a relaxed view of the agreement that the other 11 signed. We have already scrupulously observed most of the health and safety
872
measures, where our record is excellent. As for the rest, my initial view was that it was a relatively harmless bundle of high-sounding, long-term intentions with a bien pensant—or perhaps these days I should say "politically correct" —flavour which would not affect us very much for good or for ill. But it gradually became apparent to me that the complex web of the chapter, the charter and the social agreement within the protocol, together with a long chain of directives which for the sake of convenience I shall bundle up together and call the "social package", had a cumulative effect which should be resisted.
Why do I say that? I say it because the whole thrust of the social package is backwards towards the ponderous tripartite structure of the corporate state. Its thrust is away from the gathering movement in industry towards smaller units, differential local pay agreements, performance related pay, profit sharing, labour market flexibility, portable pensions and so forth. Above all, there is nothing whatever in the social package which helps unemployment or the unemployed, whether in continental Europe or in Britain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out. In Spain, with which I have some connection, there are extremely high non-wage employment costs. Unemployment is currently running at around 20 per cent. and, much as I love the Spaniards, I do not want to jostle with them in that league.
I therefore return to my main point—that Britain leads the Community in thinking on social policy. There is a growing realisation across a wide band of the political spectrum that nearly 50 years after the end of the war there has to be a radical rethink, a. thorough reappraisal of both the labour market and. the social security system.
In a recent paper called Beyond Unemployment (recommended reading), the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who I am afraid is not with us tonight. reminded us that 5 per cent. of all our workers are now covered by profit-related schemes; and more people than ever before own shares in the companies which employ them. That is a far more widespread practice here than in Germany, France or Italy. The benefit is fairly clear. It means that in a downswing there is a flexible element in the total wage package which reduces employers' incentives to lay off labour, while in an upswing additional labour can be taken on at a rate which will not swamp the marginal utility of the additional worker. That seems to be a blindingly obvious way of doing something which is basically sensible, as after two centuries of the dismal science no one has managed to come up with a policy to iron out the business cycle.
It is not only a matter of theory. In the past 10 years British companies have made much progress in the forms of employer/employee relationships. Mercury Communications, Marks & Spencer and Smith Kline Beecham are in the vanguard of employer relationships worldwide. The truth is that any blueprint of how companies should reward or involve their employees is bound to be counterproductive in terms

873
of reducing unemployment. Different practices will suit the needs of different types of industry. That pattern will change rapidly over the years.
The labour market has changed enormously in its composition and in the balance of sexes since the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, so ably chaired her unemployment committee in 1982, on which I had the honour to serve. It will go on changing rapidly as technology changes and the size of business units change. It is the last area on which we should want to clamp a bureaucratic straitjacket.
Such ideas come not only from ultra-libertarians, the new Right, the centre Right or any of those pigeon holes beloved by commentators. I have just been reading Liberty, Equality and Efficiency by James Meade, the Nobel prize winning economist who is not exactly associated with the Right. In his chapter on "Building the New Europe" he refers to,
"the need for much experiment in developing liberal capitalist economies".
He continues,
"It would be a grave obstacle if change could be tried out only on a uniform basis in every European country simultaneously".
Meade invents a land called Agathotopia (whose etymology will not be lost on noble Lords) in which the preferred social security and employment policy is a guaranteed basic income coupled with flexibility in wage rates and profit sharing. There are other important institutions in Agathotopia such as social investment in order to turn the national debt into a national asset; and the state runs what he calls,
"a somewhat socialistic apparatus for a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and for greater social security and fuller employment".
Presumably that is what noble Lords on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches also want. Yet Meade is unhappy both with equal pay and any kind of minimum wage. Equal pay for equal work interferes with his partnership principle by which a worker receives, not a contractual wage rate, but a share in the concern's profit. Indeed, he says:
"Any attempt to lay down a meaningful minimum wage … as an equalising device at the lower end of the income scale would have disastrous effects".
In particular, he says that it will be extremely unfair to any country adopting an Agathotopian policy of tackling unemployment by combining a low wage with a high basic income.
The most important of all Meade's perceptions is that there could be,
"a very great variety of experiments in the type of institutions required for the maintenance of full employment and for the redistribution of income and wealth in a competitive free-enterprise market".
On those grounds Meade is extremely chary of the Social Charter. It is my submission that it will make the whole area of experimentation and development progressively more difficult, if not impossible.
A whole new debate and agenda are opening up in this country. We are beginning to think the almost unthinkable. Rather than settling for a natural rate of unemployment of 7, 8 or 9 per cent., people like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and others—for example, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—say that
874
we should aim seriously at full employment, with frictional unemployment at, say, 3 per cent., which was the aim of the 1944 White Paper.
The Labour Party's Commission on Social Justice has also adopted that aim. On page 23 of Social Justice in a Changing World it is said:
"full employment must become a central objective of policy again to enable people to enjoy real independence, and to provide the services on which we all at various stages of our lives depend".
How laudable and inspiring. But how we shall achieve that by voting for the Social Charter beats me. I do not know how the fine-sounding passage which the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, read out in her fiery speech will help to achieve that end. There is not a single job-creating proposal in the following seven articles. Even the noble Lord, Lord Desai—one of the most distinguished economists on the Left (who is not at the moment present)—does not convince me. I am not interested any longer in unemployment in 1979. I am interested in unemployment now and how we will get it down. The social protocol offers nothing in that direction.
Signing up for the social package is not the way to go. I believe that the opt-out is useful and should be supported. I said at Second Reading that I thought it might be challenged in the European Court, as trans-national companies would find themselves operating under different rules here from those applying on the Continent. A number of other noble Lords have mentioned that point. But that is no reason for opting back into it. Rather, we should be there in the Council chamber arguing our point of view, for which I suspect we will find growing acceptance. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is right in saying that we shall find no friends at all in this matter. On those grounds I shall vote for the Government tonight.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, after a few weeks of considerable argument within the parties on either side of the House I detect that normal service has now been resumed. It will not come as a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—who happens to share my birthday—that I do not share his political views. I do not particularly want to see socialism through the front door, back door, side door or trap door. I support my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who remains absolutely convinced that we must be a fully-fledged party to the council table of the European Community, but, like him, I believe that the social policy agreement is a bridge too far.
I declare an interest as the director of relatively small companies which utterly depend upon world trade for their business and for exports of their main products. I believe in high productivity, and so do the workers concerned. I also believe in good wages and working conditions. But these things cannot be legislated into existence. I regard with real dread the Brussels directive which may load costs onto employers and therefore result in lost jobs.
The debates in this House on industry have two main themes. Two cries go up: "Save us, Oh Lord,

875
from high unemployment", and, "Save us, Oh Lord, from more and more bureaucracy". I say amen to both of those. If we look at Article 1 of the social protocol, they are eminently worthy principles to attain. I do not mind European-wide broad aspirations about social dimensions for the single market, but those matters are not for supra-national body directives at all; they are for directives from the nation states concerned. The United Kingdom may be an island and the European Community a huge market of 350 million people, but this country is not isolated from the world trade scene. In the famous words of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, it is a tough old place in which to run a business. One very important point that has not featured much in your Lordships' House today is that the satisfied customer is an essential ingredient of that.
For me, unlike my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. subsidiarity in the treaty is a very big plus. I believe that the Brussels regulations and directives which will flow from it will be subject to the tests so ably described by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when the Bill was going through this House. If subsidiarity means anything at all in this field it must mean that directives should come solely from national governments and not from Brussels.
I care deeply for the best possible co-operation in the workplace on social matters. I believe that that is the way to help employers and employees alike. Like the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I believe that employees are a resource, but I also believe that agreements between employers and employees are best settled as near as possible to the workplace.
In my view, the social protocol is a bridge too far and is potentially a wide-ranging intrusion into the ability of nation states to regulate their employer-employee relationships. Therefore, I believe that we should support the Government tonight. I shall certainly do so and trust that all my noble friends on this side of the House will do likewise.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I feel rather like a No. 11 batsman. Wickets have, I suspect, fallen more quickly than expected. It may be my task to occupy the crease for a few minutes while the ground fills up for the star batsmen to come. I am also glad of the opportunity to speak. I have not done so since Second Reading. Each time I sought to do so my views were more eloquently expressed by others. However, on this issue, working as I do for a company that employs some 90,000 people, I should like to highlight a few points. I am firmly in favour of ratification. Like most of those in business and industry, I believe it is vital to be at the centre of the debate that influences the future development of Europe. As a country we have taken far too long to decide that in relation to the Maastricht Treaty. But in common with most of those engaged in commerce I am wholly against the social chapter.
Those who urge us to adopt it do so in markedly contrasting tones. Some speak with siren voices; others are much more strident. The siren voices, orchestrated as they are by the noble Lord, Lord
876
Richard, lead us on by telling us that the ambitions of the social chapter are decent, obvious and can only do us good. We are reminded that they are no more than the promotion of employment, proper social protection, good communications between management and labour, equal opportunities and so forth. It is suggested that all of them are uncontroversial and pure motherhood stuff.
The strident voices, although heard less in this House, speak to a very, very different text. They tell us—I heard the Leader of the Opposition say it in another place this afternoon—that the social chapter is necessary to prevent this country becoming the sweatshop of Europe. Without it, so it is said, the legitimate ambitions of our own workforce will be trampled on; we should strive for the high standards achieved by our much more enlightened Community partners. I believe that there is one very clear and simple answer to those two inconsistent arguments. The purposes of the social chapter can, if countries wish it, be achieved through the normal democratic processes at national level. On this I wholly agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hai 'sham. It seems to me proper and sensible that individual countries should have freedom of choice in this area. They can then take account of their own national priorities. They can reflect their own national cultures. Perhaps most of all they can meet the wishes of their own people.
The European Community already has, under the Treaty of Rome, some powers to regulate in this area. To grant it a further raft of powers is both unnecessary and, as my noble friend Lord Sanderson indicated, dangerous. It would create a charter for inflexibility, a charter for red tape. It would impose a clog on competitiveness. In saying this I make plain my own belief in the importance of good labour relations. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, suggested earlier in the debate that we who are against the social chapter regard labour as a cost and not a resource. I say as passionately as I can that he is mistaken. Perhaps I may also say that his side has no monopoly at all on social concern.
I share the philosophy so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lord Carr. We know that the skills of our workforce are our most precious asset. We know that they are the bedrock of our success. The way companies harness the talents of their people and motivate them has never been more important to our future. But what is also clear is that approaches to employment are becoming, and will increasingly have to become, much more flexible. Issues are high on the agenda which simply were not there at all in even the very recent past—maternity and paternity leave; job sharing; flexible hours; career breaks: homeworking; retraining; and I could go on. There are different employee needs to be taken into account, from those of two career couples to those of single parents; from single-minded careerists to people who wish to work but also to engage in community service. Flexibility is, and must be, the key.
In this changing world national wishes and commercial needs will best determine in each country what the working conditions in that country should

877
be. Where a legislative framework is needed, as many noble Lords opposite suggest, national parliaments can surely decide best what is right. Where business needs dictate, as they surely do, the attraction and motivation of a skilled workforce, individual employers must continuously assess what they need to do.
Nor can I see, as my noble friend Lord Aldington also cannot see, how the transfer of such powers to Brussels would square with the doctrine of subsidiarity. In the Second Reading debate I indicated my reservations about the long-term effectiveness of this doctrine. Article 3b of the treaty is open to a variety of legal interpretations. The procedures agreed at Edinburgh are helpful. They require the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to focus their minds on every piece of Community legislation to see whether it is necessary. But I do not believe that they yet entrench the concept of subsidiarity.
This may not matter much at present. The excessive claims of the Commission have so far temporarily been curbed. But fashions change, and trends towards centralism will at some time re-assert themselves. I believe that this would be the greatest single danger to the future fabric of the European Community. So I very much hope that the Government will seek in the next round of negotiations to give subsidiarity a rock-like legal foundation. It is a delicate plant and it needs firm constitutional roots. But in the meantime I simply cannot see how it can be said to be necessary for the Commission to undertake the tasks outlined in the social chapter. They are a classic illustration of powers which can best be exercised at local level.
Nor does such regulation meet the real practical needs of Europe at present. What Europe needs, and what this country needs, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said, is greater competitiveness. Consider just a few—and I promise not many—statistics. The European Community share of total OECD exports fell by almost one-sixth during the 1980s from 25.5 per cent. to 21.5 per cent. Europe's manufacturing productivity grew during that time by less than 3 per cent. compared with 4 per cent. in the United States, 5 per cent. in Japan and a much higher percentage in the Pacific rim, which it is estimated by the year 2000 will account for 30 per cent. of the world's gross domestic product. Europeans work a shorter week than people do in the United States or in Japan. The European workforce is more highly paid and social costs are higher. Europe is losing its competitiveness in the world market-place. This is causing unemployment to rise.
We shall need tremendous efforts over the next few years if we are going to make Europe competitive against the rest of the world. This will need imagination, entrepreneurship and flexibility. Regulation to ensure the openness of the single market will remain vital. It is still necessary to counter ingrained protectionism. But apart from this, regulation should have as light a touch as possible. The bankers and businessmen I talk to in our partner countries seem to be very sceptical of the social chapter. They are concerned about the costs to
878
industry. They are concerned about inflexibility of labour relations. They are concerned about the high rate of non-wage labour costs. The spectre of Euro-sclerosis is back with us again.
For us in the United Kingdom the economic success not just of this country but of Europe as a whole is very important. Eight of our 10 top export markets are in the Community. We export about as much to Germany as to the United States and Japan combined. We are truly trading partners. But we are also competitive partners. What we must preserve is our freedom to be competitive both within Europe and as part of Europe in the rest of the world.
We have at the moment a very considerable opportunity. We have low inflation—may we long maintain it. Productivity is continuing to rise and so are exports. The Government are now sensibly and constructively seeking to support and promote the efforts of manufacturing industry. We are emerging from the recession ahead of other European countries. We have a platform for growth and a window of opportunity which we must use to win new export markets and to displace imports with our own manufactured goods. Our balance of trade deficit is still a sober reminder of why it is crucial for us as a country to grasp this chance. The Government are absolutely right in their determination not to shackle us with the rigidity, regulation and cost of the social chapter. We need our freedom to be competitive both within and outside the single market.
As a No. 11 batsman I have served my turn. The spectators are here for the skilled performance of the gladiators still to come. But in conclusion let me say, as I and others have done earlier, that I believe that those of us who oppose the social chapter are every bit as much in favour of improved living conditions as those who urge us to adopt it. We share the aims, but we differ on the means. I believe that their mistake is in believing that increased regulation by the Community would of itself magically improve working conditions. I believe that it would impose an unacceptable burden, would lessen employment opportunities and would drag us down.
Surely we all know that there is only one sure way to achieve better living and working conditions; that is to achieve a competitive, industrial base and sound economic growth. I believe that that is the prize. It is an area in which we have a chance of industrial and business revival. That is why I believe we should steer firmly on the course which the Prime Minister has so skilfully and courageously charted.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as I have listened to the debate this evening in your Lordships' House, it has struck me that a number of noble Peers are making very little distinction between the Social Charter and the social chapter. But it is the social chapter about which we should be talking tonight. This Bill is concerned with the social chapter.
I reinforce what other noble Lords have said about the mild nature of the social chapter and the extent to which it still leaves very considerable freedom of movement and decision to individual countries. In

879
particular, I draw the attention of noble Lords to Article 2.2. which states, referring to achieving a number of objectives which have been laid down in Article 2.1:
"To this end, the Council may adopt, by means of directives, minimum requirements for gradual implementation, having regard to the conditions and technical rules obtaining in each of the Member States. Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings".
I suggest that that article is falling over backwards to introduce a maximum element of flexibility. It is about that protocol and not about the Social Charter that we are talking tonight and on which we shall vote later this evening.
Many noble Lords in the debate this evening have referred to Brussels. Brussels is becoming a kind of "boo" word. It is used to conjure up a picture of an all-powerful, centralised authority able to get away with doing whatever it wants. But all directives have to go through the Council of Ministers. Surely that council is alive and awake and looking at what the directives contain. It is in the position to decide yes or no and whether a directive should be adopted. In the great majority of cases, as many other noble Lords have pointed out tonight, on matters of considerable importance there still remains the veto which can be applied by any member of the council. So let us have no more talking about Brussels as though it were king and could not be challenged.
Tonight's debate is about whether or not we should opt out. I urge your Lordships very strongly to support the argument that we should not opt out, but not perhaps for the reasons which other noble Lords have put forward during the debate. As all noble Lords have agreed, in the Treaty of Rome itself there are articles which require social policy. That is required for perfectly good reasons which are explained in the Treaty of Rome and understood by all of us when we signed that treaty.
There have to be social policies. Just because a great many of us do not very much like—and I do not very much like—some of the ideas which come from Brussels, it is extremely important that we should not be out of the discussions which determine what social policy is going to be. We need to be there in order to stop the major follies which may come from Brussels. But: if we opt out the discussion goes on and decisions are taken without us. Once again, as in the sorry story of this country's relationship with the European Community, right from the time when we were not at Messina and when we did not sign when the other countries did, we are landed with decisions which we do not like but which we have to try, all too late and too little to modify, because we were not there when the important decisions had to be made.
So for no other reason and since we accept that there will be social policies, let us be there to get the right ones; because there are social policies which I, and I am sure many of my noble friends, would not like. We do not wish to see a revival of the corporatist state. I go along with the noble Lord who said something which was very interesting; namely, that the conversion of the Labour Party to Europe
880
followed M. Delors' visit to the TUC in which he conveyed the impression, no doubt, that by accepting the European Community as part of its policy for entry into the Community, the rights would be restored that the trade unions had had and which had been undermined so much in the past. It would be a way back to something like the corporatist state. I am dead against that and so are my noble friends. That was concerned with reservations at one point which my leader in the other place, Paddy Ashdown, made, and for which he has been criticised, as a critical comment on the social chapter. We do not wish to see that. It is my belief that the excessive power of sectional interests both of employers and trade unions have done a very great deal of damage to this country. They have affected the economic efficiency of the country and increased the poverty which we need not have had if sectional interests had not dominated so much. So do not let us have any talk of any return to the corporatist state. But we need to be there to see that it does not happen.
We all know that because we have a single market there has to be some element of social policy. That is in the treaty. We all know that it is. We know that there will have to be such policies—and there are already such policies. After all, the equal pay legislation, about which some noble Lords have commented during the debate, which is based on Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, was not adopted for social reasons or because the founding fathers were particularly interested in rights for women or any fancy concepts of that sort. but because—misguidedly in my view— the French thought that they had equal pay and that they would be at a. grave disadvantage unless Article 119 was incorporated into the treaty and applied. That element of social policy was introduced inevitably for economic reasons. Such things will occur again and again. We are bound to have some elements of social policy in the operation of the Community and we had better be there to see that it is the kind that we want.
If there is a single market, obviously there have to be rules to ensure that people do not cheat in what is intended to be an open and free market in which everybody can compete on equal terms. One cannot compete on equal terms unless there are some rules and conditions to govern the way in which people compete. Even the most out and out free marketeer does not think that there are no rules. A free market is not a jungle. It is a market that is properly regulated. That has been true ever since medieval times. Part of that regulation has to be social regulation. But how much and in what way? That is what needs to be decided.
We have to be there because there will be such rules. Some will develop out of what is in the social chapter. If we are part of it, we can discuss how it develops and we can insist—and here I go along with a great deal of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and others—that we want a maximum amount of subsidiarity. Many matters in this field are better settled at national level or, indeed, at the local level, but not all. Some such matters definitely have to be handled at the level of the Community as a whole.

881
There is another reason which has not been mentioned to any extent this evening. Your Lordships may think that I am becoming excessively gloomy and excessively a Cassandra here. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, referred to the competition coming from the Pacific Rim. I am deeply frightened about the ability of the European Community, and particularly of this country, to meet that challenge. Labour costs in the Pacific Rim are lower and they can undercut us in price. Surely we are not going to turn to protectionism to meet that challenge. The Pacific Rim countries are a threat competitively, but they are also an opportunity. As their success increases and as they have more money to spend, there is an opportunity for those who are capable of taking it. My nightmare is that this country, with its woefully under-educated and under-trained labour force, will not be able to stand up to that competition and will not be able to take advantage of the opportunities. That is why I greatly welcome that part of Article 1—and this is where I should like to put the major emphasis on social policy—which refers to,
"The development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combatting of exclusion".
We need a new kind of social policy. There is a framework here. If we are in Europe and arguing about it—and have not contracted out—we can ensure that our social policy is geared so that we can meet these frightening challenges—and they are frightening challenges—which are coming from the growing success of the Pacific Rim. I am referring not only to Japan, but also to China. China's statistics may well be open to challenge, but China's growth rate last year was over 12 per cent. That is a threat, but it is also an opportunity.
I should like the European countries to consider all their past policies because in many ways those policies are out of date. Some of the arguments from the Labour Benches sounded as if we were still in the world economy of 20 years ago. We are not; we are moving into a global economy. We need social policies if we are to respond to those challenges because there will be drastic changes and a great deal of economic disturbance inside the European Community, and particularly in this country.
If we are going to make those economic changes, we have to have social policies, we have to equip the people to meet them and make them reasonably acceptable to the people who will suffer from them. If we do not make them reasonably acceptable to the people who will suffer grievously from those changes, the result will not just be economic failure, it will be social disaster.
9.14 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for those of us who have sat through a large part of the proceedings on the European Communities (Amendment) Act this has been, in many ways, a refreshing debate. It has been refreshing because, on the whole, it has been concerned with the real treaties rather than the fantasy treaties which we were largely debating. Indeed, only the noble Lord, Lord Pearson
882
of Rannoch, who is as irrepressible as he is incorrigible, continued with his fantasy idea of the Maastricht Treaty and the treaties that preceded it.
All the same, it is slightly odd (is it not?) that we should be debating an original Motion from the Government which merely takes note of the Government's policies. Normally, governments ask us to approve their policies. The fact that they are asking us only to note them rather than to approve them indicates that there may be—perhaps not in this House but in another place—some difference of view within the government party about the advisability, or otherwise, of the Maastricht Treaty being approved at all. Otherwise, why have the Government, as my noble friend Lord Barnett said, backed themselves into a corner? It seems strange that we should be up against this issue at this stage, after Royal Assent. The point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and, with a slightly different thrust, by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
Of course, the political effects of the debate can be dealt with fairly quickly compared with the much more important economic and social effects. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal made it clear that there would be ratification anyway, although, if he believes that the Government can get away with ratification against the vote of another place—we have another 45 minutes before we know what that will be—he has another think coming. There will be considerable outrage if they attempt that.
We heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, again, about the risk of delay to the ratification of the treaty. It has been made clear that, whatever happens, there will be no delay. Either the Government will win their vote in another place, or it will be necessary for them to swallow what they have been saying and to ratify, with the inclusion of the social chapter.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, complained about the Labour Front Bench abstaining on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I wonder what he would have said had we voted with the Government, and then come back with the amendment that we have put forward today. Would he not say that we had pre-empted our position by supporting the treaty without the social chapter? As an astute politician of long standing, he would have found a way to complain about our behaviour, whatever we did.
I have also been amused by some of the discussion on subsidiarity. As we all know, subsidiarity stops here. If I am in Brussels, I do not want national governments to take decisions that I could take. If I am in Westminster, especially if I am a Conservative government, I want to destroy the possibility of there being local authorities which might take different decisions; for example, any regional government, or any other elected authorities that could exercise powers which I, in central government, could keep to myself. I am a little cynical about some of the political positions taken up on subsidiarity. The real point here is that the whole of the social chapter and the Agreement on Social Policy exude subsidiarity. That is what it is all about. It is all about the powers which

883
remain with member states and the restrictions on the right of the Community to take action on social policy. I shall return to that issue when I consider the economic and social effects.
As I say, we do not need to detain ourselves too long over the political effects of the issue that we are debating. We need, however, to detain ourselves considerably—not that I mean to detain your Lordships more than I have to—with the economic and social effects of the social agreement and the social chapter. If we read those documents, as not many people seem to have done—my noble friend Lord Wedderburn did an excellent job of explaining what it is all about—we see the fundamental phrase which comes in the Agreement on Social Policy. It says:
"The Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States".
That is why I say that it exudes subsidiarity.
We must ask ourselves, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell did, what all the fuss is about. Is it true that this is as good or as bad a document as has been claimed? Having heard the debate, surely the answer must be that it cannot possibly be as good or as bad as has been claimed. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn described it as minimal. He described it as a careful and narrow document leading to the commencement of a social dimension rather than as being something important in itself. Any objective reading would show that those who made excessive claims about the virtue of the social chapter or, as did the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, made excessive claims about the vices of the social chapter, have not taken in its wording and restrictions.
I believe that there is a good business case to be made. We have heard a great deal from noble Lords who have been involved in business. So too have I all my life. Padraig Flynn, the Commissioner for Social Affairs, said that a good social climate is a sine qua non of a good business climate. Most hard business people recognise that. I suggest that that is the case in every country except this country. It is the CBI which is out on a limb. The General Secretary of UNICE, the European employers organisation, has said that if the social chapter is used sensibly it will be a very good thing.
There are a number of good business reasons why the social chapter should be adopted by this country in addition to the other 11 nations. First, I give as an example the multinational companies. We have heard from a number of noble Lords who work for such companies. Multinationals expect to have common social policies so that they can make rational decisions about the location of industry within the European Community. Secondly, as the Ernst and Young study made plain, inward investors expect that the countries in which they are investing will wholeheartedly take part in the institutions of the Community. They dislike semi-detached countries, which is what we should be if we excluded ourselves.
The third reason is not perhaps so much a business reason as a social reason. If we in this country make it easier to sack people, as we have during the past 10 or 15 years, British workers will of course be sacked rather than workers in other countries. Fourthly,
884
employers want to employ highly-skilled highly-paid and high quality employees rather than employing those with fewer skills, lower pay and less security of tenure and able to contribute less to the business. In that respect I have found some of the contributions rather strange. Saving the presence of noble Lords opposite who have been involved in business and in industrial relations, I find it strange that anyone engaged in a modern business should attempt to deny that. Finally, it is good business practice everywhere that there should be full consultation with employees. That is what the social chapter is about.
In addition to the business case for the social chapter, we must look at the social ease. That was made clear by a number of my noble friends. notably Lord Eatwell, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn. The effect on the economy and on soctety of low pay and low security of employment is not merely that the direct labour costs are lower—of course they are. Business people look on labour as a resource, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said. They look on it in the total context of the society and the economy in which they are working. If we encourage low pay, part-time work and insecurity of employment, and if we permit—I shall not say "encourage"—high unemployment as we have during the past 14 years we shall get, as we have, a low tax base and high social security costs. We shall have all those things which lead to the progressive breakdown of social cohesion, which is what I understand the Maastricht Treaty and the earlier treaties to be about. The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, curiously enough, saw that point but drew the diametrically wrong conclusion from it.
What is apparent from all that is that we have two Tory parties. It may be that we have always had two Tory parties. The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg., referred to Disraeli and my noble friend Lord Longford referred to Shaftesbury. It has been true ever since the Tory Party existed that there has been the Tory Party which recognises the existence of two nations and tries to make it one nation; arid there has been the Tory Party which exploits the existence of two nations.
If I am being polite about Conservative attitudes towards the social chapter, 1 would say that they are defeatist. I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, that their argument is that the social chapter is a recipe for unemployment; that comes from a party which has increased unemployment over the past 14 years to the highest level since the 1930s.
Of course there are noble Lords—notably the noble Lords, Lord Carr of Hadley and Lord Alexander or Weedon—who have genuinely, throughout their lives, been concerned with social cohesion and harmony in industry and commerce. But the record does not support the view that the Conservative Party has collectively taken that position.
If I am being impolite. I would say—and I really believe that there is far too much truth in this—that the rejection of the social chapter Is a cynical repudiation of progress towards social cohesion. My noble friend Lord Desai described it as the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. That is what has happened in the past 14 years and it has happened in a situation in which the decisions on

885
social policy have been made by this Government rather than being influenced or controlled in any way by Brussels.
If you want a society in which the norm is low wages, minimal employment rights and the creation of an underclass, you will vote against the inclusion of the social chapter. If you believe, as I do, that there are both practical and moral reasons why we should have the social dimension in our economic policy, you will vote for the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Richard and if necessary, for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
9.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, once again your Lordships' House has produced a debate of really high quality. Certainly there are no signs of Euro-fatigue in this House.
Under Section 7, the European Communities (Amendment) Act will enter into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on the Motion. Therefore, it is in compliance with Section 7 of the Act that the Government's Motion simply asks your Lordships to note the policy outlined so clearly this afternoon by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal.
There is no doubt where the Government stand. We continue to support a sensible social dimension for the Community but our policy must take account of the different national traditions from country to country. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place:
"It should be a question not of how to ensure precisely the same levels of social protection in each member state but of how to ensure that Europe can compete effectively on the world stage".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/93; cols. 541–2.]
I understand that that is not the view shared by the noble Lords, Lord Richard or Lord McIntosh. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made crystal clear his view when he moved the Labour Party's amendment to the Government's Motion. But I believe that the choice is straightforward: on the one hand, there is the Government's view, shared by British business, of a deregulated, competitive and free trading Europe unburdened by unnecessary and arbitrary social costs imposed by Brussels; on the other hand, there are old—I would say outdated—corporatist views advocated by numerous Labour Peers this evening.
I do not believe that those ideas worked in the past. Moreover, I do not believe that they will work now or in the future. However, the one thing about which I am absolutely sure is that business in Europe has changed and is changing very fast. I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, that the world is a very different place since she tried to introduce In Place of Strife. It is also a very different place from that of her memory of 1979 when this nation, as noble Lords will remember, lost 29 million working days. Let us contrast that with the situation that we now have with half-a-million working days lost. That is still too many, but it is the lowest since 1891 when records began.
886
We heard a number of speeches from the Liberal Democrat Benches which were not quite in the same vein but, no doubt, that party still agrees that Brussels should have greater powers than I believe all employers and those who wish to create wealth in this country believe. I was amazed when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, quoted eloquently from Article 2.2 of the social protocol and completely left out Article 2.1. It is perfectly true that in the first tirét of Article 2.1 there is no change because the existing treaty continues. But one only has to look at the tirét on,
"—working conditions;
—the information and consultation of workers",
and so on, through the rest of Article 2.1 to realise that there are huge extensions of the Community's competence and scope for Community law imposed by QMV, including matters best left entirely to national decision as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone said or to individual firms and their employees as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said.
It is true that all member states have had to accept that European competitiveness has been declining. Since the mid-1980s, EC exports and world markets have fallen by 3 per cent. In the 1980s, the Community had trade surpluses with the US and Japan. They have now become trade deficits. On labour costs, hourly wages in manufacturing in leading Community countries are not much higher than those in the United States. But, as a number of speakers pointed out, it is the high proportion of non-wage costs of social security payments that makes the difference. Those elements make up about half the, total labour costs in Germany, France and Italy. In the United States they make up about 25 per cent. and in countries such as Korea and Taiwan the figure is about 10 per cent. That accounts for the higher overall labour costs in Europe.
Implementing the social chapter would mean increasing social costs across the board. That is our worry. In turn, it would make European industry less competitive. If we are uncompetitive, then we create unemployment. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in moving his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked why opt out of the social agreement if the Government wanted to be at the heart of Europe in shaping the debate? I should merely point out that we are shaping the debate in Europe through the social protocol. Other member states are looking very carefully at Britain's policies and realising that what we have been saying is true: high social costs do inhibit employment and affect Europe's competitiveness. The director-general of the CBI said on Monday last that every single employer group like the CBI in Europe, in Germany and in France is against the social chapter, but that only our Government actually had the courage to say that we did not want any part of it.
If we had not set an example in Europe, the current debate on social policy in the Community might never have happened. A number of Labour Peers asked why the United Kingdom was against increased social protection. Perhaps I may say quite unequivocally to

887
them that we are not against social protection. The UK has one of the most comprehensive safety nets in the Community. Our nationwide system of social assistance provides income for all. There are many other aspects of our social provision which on another occasion, no doubt, we shall discuss.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said that the difference in the debate is between those who think only in terms of cost and those who think of workers as a resource. That is simplistic nonsense. Investment in workers in the form of training and skill development is not only desirable, it is essential, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, said. What does not follow, in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is that it is best achieved or guided by the Community and the social chapter. I believe that it is best done in Britain, just as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, asked what progress had been made in 14 years. I must say to her that when I look at the reform of trade union law and what that has led to, I see that it has restored the control of unions to their members and the role of unions to representing their members' interests and not seeking to run the country. That is the great difference from the wonderful days which the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, seems to recall now through her rose-tinted diaries.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked about implementing social action and said that the UK's record was deplorable. It is nonsense to say that the UK has blocked social progress. We have not blocked any legislation in the Social Affairs Council for over five years. We have not voted against a single legislative measure in the whole of the social action programme. Our record in implementing agreed social measures is second to none in the Community. The latest Commission report on the implementation of measures up to the end of 1992 shows that the UK was top of the league table, having implemented into domestic legislation 32 out of the 33 relevant measures. No other member state could match that record, and some have even failed to implement over a third of the measures.
There is a growing realisation on the Continent of Europe that the UK approach is right. The OECD, the European Commission and the IMF all forecast that the UK will grow faster than major EC competitors in 1993. Our interest rates are the lowest for 15 years. We have inflation levels which we have not seen for nearly 30 years, and interest rates are the lowest in the Community. Unemployment is coming down. We have had our fifth consecutive monthly fall. Manufacturing unit wage costs are the lowest for 20 years. Between 1980 and 1990 UK manufacturing productivity grew faster than in all other major industrial countries, and I remind your Lordships that in the previous two decades the UK was bottom of the league. According to the OECD—not British figures—between 1984 and 1990 the UK had by far the best job creation record among the larger EC economies.
There are many other statistics like that. I shall not bore the House with them all at this hour of the night, but 1 can say this to your Lordships. We have more
888
people in self-employment now than ever before—2.9 million. We have a proportion of workers in permanent part-time work well above the EC average at 21 per cent. because they want part-time work. Both self-employment and part-time work would be adversely affected if the views of some of our European partners were brought to bear through the social chapter.
I believe that the decisions of the Copenhagen' European Council, which were dominated by concern about economic growth and unemployment in Europe, are right. The Council wants to study the challenge of competitiveness and it wants to make sure that we have greater efficiency and flexibility in the labour market, that we restrain the rising costs of social expenditure while safeguarding the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, I believe that that sort of flexibility can only come when we decide at national level the social policy which should be our own to decide.
There are many other aspects of our debate. But we have different systems of industrial relations in the Community, different traditions and different working practices. That is why I believe that the social chapter is irreconcilable with the United Kingdom's approach.
When my right honourable friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht in December 1991 he had a clear negotiating mandate from Parliament which included the avoidance of intrusive Community measures in social areas which are matters for national decision. He returned from Maastricht with a treaty that does just that. That is not just the view of the Government. It is the view of the then director general of the CBI, Sir John Banham. It is the view of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce which said:
"The Government was quite right to stick out for an exclusion on the Social Chapter. All 800 Chambers of Commerce in Europe have rejected the Commission's plans to legislate in areas such as hours of work. There will be many Continental businesses today envying their UK competitors for the comparative flexibility and low labour costs that will arise from the UK opting out".
All in all there are three reasons for supporting the Government Motion and opposing the Labour and Liberal amendments tonight. First, this is an area of policy which should continue to be made in Britain. Secondly, it is not an effective means of furthering social progress. Thirdly, it will raise expectations of greater spending on social policies at just the time when all G7 countries in the EC are agreed that such spending must be contained.
The potential for damage to our employment prospects and those throughout Europe—but to ours were we to be forced to sign up to the social chapter of the Eleven—would be immense. British employers, large and small, know that it would be most unwise to sign up to the social chapter. That is why the treaty so carefully negotiated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister means that we do not have to do so. It is the treaty that he negotiated that we should ratify, without the Labour amendment and without the Liberal amendment. That is why I ask your Lordships to pass the government Motion tonight.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I detect that the House desires to come to a decision very soon upon the issues. Therefore, I shall not detain it long. I merely say a few sentences, if I may. I warn the noble Baroness, I warn the Government, that this issue will not go away. They may win the vote in the Chamber tonight but the son of the social chapter will be here, as will the grandson of the social chapter. Eventually this country will be carried kicking and screaming into a European social policy which, because of the Government's action now, we shall find more difficult to accept and much more difficult to adapt to. With enthusiasm, I commend the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the original Motion was, That this House, in compliance with the requirements of Section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy, since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to leave out from ("That") to end and insert the words set out on the Order Paper.
9.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 295.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Desai, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Eatwell, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ennals, L.

Meston, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Galpern, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Parry, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hamwee, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Henniker, L.

Rea, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hollick, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Russell, E.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Howell, L.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shackleton, L.

890

Shepherd, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

De Freyne, L.

Abinger, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Aldington, L.

Deedes, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Denham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denman, L.

Amery of Lustleigh, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Amwell, L.

Digby, L.

Annaly, L.

Donegall, M.

Arran, E.

Dormer, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Downshire, M.

Astor, V.

Dudley, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Eccles, V.

Attlee, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Auckland, L.

Elibank, L.

Barber, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bathurst, E.

Elles, B.

Belstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bessborough, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bethell, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Biddulph, L.

Elton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Blakenham, V.

Fairhaven, L.

Blatch, B.

Faithfull, B.

Blyth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Boardman, L.

Finsberg, L.

Bolton, L.

Fisher, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Flather, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Forbes, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Forester, L

Bramall, L.

Forte, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brigstocke, B

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gainford, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Geddes, L.

Butterfield, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gisborough, L.

Byron, L.

Glendyne, L.

Cadman, L.

Goold, L.

Caithness, E.

Gormanston, V.

Camden, M.

Goschen, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gowrie, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Granard, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Gray, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnock, L.

Greenway, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gridley, L.

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Carver, L.

Hacking, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Cayzer, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Harlech, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Chelmer, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harrowby, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Harvington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Haslam, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Colwyn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Henley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hertford, M.

Craigavon, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Hives, L.

Cranborne, V.

Holderness, L.

Cranbrook, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hood, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Hooper, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hothfield, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Howe, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Daventry,V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Davidson, V.

Inchyra, L.

891

Ironside, L.

Reay, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Rees, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Remnant, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rennell, L.

Killearn, L.

Renton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Renwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Kindersley, L.

Rockley, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rodney, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Roxburghe, D.

Kitchener, E.

Sackville, L.

Knollys, V.

St. Davids, V.

Knutsford, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lawrence, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Savile, L.

Layton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Leigh, L.

Selborne, E.

Limerick, E.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Lindsay, E.

Sharpies, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sherfield, L.

Long, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lothian, M.

Shuttleworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

LyeII, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecktrsh, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [ Lord Chancellor.]

Stockton, E.

Strange, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Manton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Marchwood, V.

Marlesford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Suffield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinton, E.

Mersey, V.

Terrington, L.

Middleton, L.

Teviot, L.

Mills, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Tollemache, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Torphichen, L.

Morris, L.

Torrington, V.

Mountevans, L.

Townshend, M.

Mountgarret, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Moyola, L.

Tryon, L.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nathan, L.

Vinson, L.

Nelson, E.

Vivian, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Orkney, E.

Warnock, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Waverley, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Weatherill, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Weinstock, L.

Parkinson, L.

Westbury, L.

Pender, L.

Wharton, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Perth, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Pike, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Plumb, L.

Wise, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wolfson, L.

Polwarth, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Portman, V.

Woolton, E.

Prentice, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Pym, L.

Wynford, L.

Quinton, L.

Young, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from ("That") to end and insert ("in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government, within thirty days of the coming into force of this Act, should give reality to their announced desire to put Britain "at the heart of Europe" by informing the governments of the other eleven members of the European Community of the United Kingdom's willingness to adhere to the terms of the Agreement on Social Policy annexed to the terms of the Protocol on Social Policy adopted at Maastricht on 7th February 1992, thereby putting themselves in a position to influence the development of the Community's social policy from the inside rather than the outside.")— (Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say. "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear r.he Bar.
9.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall, be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 271.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, I..

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kissin, L.

Bramall, L.

Listowel, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Desai, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Meston, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Parry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Harlech, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Richard, L.

Henniker, L.

Rochester, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hollick, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Russell, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Howell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

893

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

White, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Aldington, L.

Digby, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Donegall, M.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dormer, L.

Amery of Lustleigh, L.

Downshire, M.

Amwell, L.

Dudley, E.

Annaly, L.

Eccles, V.

Arran, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Elibank, L.

Astor, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elles, B.

Attlee, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Auckland, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Bathurst, E.

Elton, L.

Belstead, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Bethell, L.

Faithfull, B.

Biddulph, L.

Ferrers, E.

Birdwood, L.

Finsberg, L.

Blatch, B.

Fisher, L.

Blyth, L.

Flather, B.

Boardman, L.

Forbes, L.

Bolton, L.

Forte, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Gainford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Geddes, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gisborough, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Glendyne, L.

Butterfield, L.

Goold, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gormanston, V.

Byron, L

Goschen, V.

Cadman, L.

Granard, E.

Caithness, E.

Gray, L.

Camden, M.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnock, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Carrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cathcart, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Harrowby, E.

Cayzer, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Harvington, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Haslam, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Henley, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Hertford, M.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Hives, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Holderness, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Constantme of Stanmore, L.

Hood, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hooper, B.

Craigavon, V.

Hothfield, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Howe, E.

Cranborne, V,

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Inchyra, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Killearn, L.

Daventry, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Davidson, V.

Kimball, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kindersley, L.

De LTsle, V.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Deedes, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Denham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Denman, L.

Knollys, V.

894

Knutsford, V.

Roxburghe, D.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Sackville, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Davids, V.

Lawrence, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Layton, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Leigh, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Limerick, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lindsay, E.

Savile, L.

Long, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lothian, M.

Selborne, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Lyell, L.

Sharpies, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sherfield, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stedman, B.

Manton, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Marchwood, V.

Stewartby, L.

Marlesford, L.

Stockton, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Middleton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Mills, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Suffield, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Terrington, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Teviot, L.

Mountevans, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Moyola, L.

Tollemache, L.

Munster, E.

Torphichen, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Torrington, V.

Nathan, L.

Townshend, M.

Nelson, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Tryon, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Ullswater, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Vinson, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vivian, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Perth, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seat.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Pike, B.

Warnock, B.

Plumb, L.

Waverley, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Weatherill, L.

Prentice, L.

Weinstock, L.

Pym, L.

Westbury, L.

Quinton, L.

Wharton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Reay, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Rees, L.

Wise, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wolfson, L.

Renton, L.

Woolton, E.

Renwick, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Rockley, L.

Wynford, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Young, B.

Rndnev. T.

Ynnnp nf Graffham. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, not moved.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the original Motion be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Highland Regional Council (Wester Bridge) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
Humber Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Allied Irish Banks Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.

Pwllheli Harbour (Amendment) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.

  CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  CAR EXHAUST EMISSIONS
  CAR EXHAUST EMISSIONS
  OIL WASTES: PORT FACILITIES
  OIL WASTES: PORT FACILITIES
  RUNWAY CAPACITY: SOUTH EAST
  RUNWAY CAPACITY: SOUTH EAST
  CIVIL SERVICE: PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY
  CIVIL SERVICE: PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY
  ROAD TRAFFIC GROWTH
  ROAD TRAFFIC GROWTH
  RAILWAY PENSIONS
  RAILWAY PENSIONS
  BRITISH RAIL MAINTENANCE LTD.
  BRITISH RAIL MAINTENANCE LTD.
  M25 IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS
  M25 IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS
  ARMY TRAINING
  ARMY TRAINING
  INFANTRY BATTALIONS: ACCOMMODATION
  INFANTRY BATTALIONS: ACCOMMODATION
  SOCIAL SECURITY BUDGET (WORK INCENTIVES)
  SOCIAL SECURITY BUDGET (WORK INCENTIVES)
  PENSIONERS' INCOME SUPPORT
  PENSIONERS' INCOME SUPPORT
  SICK PAY
  SICK PAY
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS (PROJECTIONS)
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS (PROJECTIONS)
  SOCIAL SECURITY: LONE PARENT EXPENDITURE
  SOCIAL SECURITY: LONE PARENT EXPENDITURE
  SOCIAL SECURITY SPENDING (GROWTH)
  SOCIAL SECURITY SPENDING (GROWTH)
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 19th JULY
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 19th JULY
  DEER IN VELVET: TRANSPORTATION
  DEER IN VELVET: TRANSPORTATION
  BRITISH FILM COMMISSION (GRANT)
  BRITISH FILM COMMISSION (GRANT)
  BELOW LOW-WATER MARK REGULATIONS
  BELOW LOW-WATER MARK REGULATIONS