Sitting of 23 July 1993

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

Points of Order
9.35 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. The House will realise that there are petitions today, but I shall take a point of order from the Leader of the House.
Mr. Newton: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that a careful check of the Division lists in Hansard for the first Division last night reveals only 316 names for the Ayes and 317 for the Noes. On that basis, of course, the Opposition amendment would have been rejected without your casting vote. It would be wrong to expect you to make any immediate comment on this, but I think that the whole House would hope that you will feel able to inquire into whatever mistake or misunderstanding may have occurred.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. Is it on the same point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Mine is, Madam Speaker; yours is different, Tam.
In view of what the Leader of the House has had to say about last night's vote, is it not significant that this Government, who have lost the authority and confidence of the House of Commons, have not even got Whips and Tellers who are capable of counting? No wonder the country is up to its neck in debt.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We should not use up a great deal of time on this matter because I can deal with it. The matter raised by the Leader of the House will no doubt be looked into, but if there was an error such as he describes, it does not affect the main Question that was put to the House last night. Of course, today's proceedings are not affected by it at all.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the end of last night's vote I put to you article 1 of the Bill of Rights, which says:
622
"That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall."
I am now able to put before you two items which indicate that that is in prospect. First, the Prime Minister said:
"The treaty in the Maastricht Bill—the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—is now law, as the House well understands. Royal Assent has been given …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."—[Official Report, 22 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 526.]
The Prime Minister was determining which votes were valid and which votes were not, and he was doing it by the authority that he has as Prime Minister.
Secondly, and more significantly, the Government have indicated that if they lose today's vote there will be an election. Does the Prime Minister have the authority from the Queen? Has she said that there will be an election? [Interruption.] That is the issue. I am asking a straightforward question. If the Queen has given the Prime Minister the authority to dissolve Parliament, he should tell us so, as he would be using regal authority to destroy a Parliament that had reached a view with which he did not agree.
Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman and the House would have expected of me, I have given serious consideration to the point that was put to me last night. I am satisfied that today's motion is in conformity with section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act and meets its requirement in the new situation following the Prime Minister's statement last night. By the same token, the amendment that stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is equally in order, and I have selected it.
On another point, may I remind the House that, as they are proceedings pursuant to an Act of Parliament, the debate today may continue until 4 o'clock.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Under the rules of the House of Commons as they pertain on a Friday, have you had any request from the Foreign Secreetary to make a statement on the significant compromise reached a few hours ago by the United Nations negotiators in Baghdad—[Interruption.] This might be a question of peace and war —on the negotiations that the United Nations is conducting, particularly with regard to the lifting of sanctions as part of that compromise?
Madam Speaker: Not so far, but there is a little time to go until 10 o'clock, so there is always hope.
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect to the motion, there is presumably some difficulty in the fact that the treaty says that there will be a protocol on social policy but the Act of Parliament that we passed only last week expressly excluded the protocol on social policy. Does that create a difficulty for the motion?
Madam Speaker: No difficulty at all. The hon. Gentleman will have read the motion carefully and will understand what the debate is about. He will make up his own mind how he will vote at 4 o'clock.

PETITIONS

  Sub-post Offices
  9.42 am
  Mr. Michael Clapham: Rarely will there have been so many hon. Members present to hear a petition.
  The petition comes from the residents of Elsecar. It is addressed to "The honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled." It says:
  The humble petitioners of the sub-post office users in Elsecar, South Yorkshire…are against the removal by the Government of the right to receive pensions and benefit payments at local post offices.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House request the Government to give people the right to choose to receive pensions and benefits payments at their local post office, recognising the benefits of this to individual and community.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  Elsecar is a rural village in some ways typical, and in others not so typical, of the 16 others in my constituency. Any decision to remove from the sub-post office the opportunity to pay benefits over the counter would substantially affect its viability.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have the honour to present a petition bearing the signatures of 4,895 residents of Caithness and Sutherland.—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. If hon. Members were quieter, we could hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
  Mr. Maclennan: I have the honour to present a petition bearing the signatures of 4,895 residents of Caithness and Sutherland who express their
  deep concern that the Government propose to privatise post offices and compulsorily transfer social security payments from post offices to banks, and we oppose these measures …
  624
  as they threaten the very survival of rural post offices and deny the efficiency and convenience of the present system, especially in rural areas.
  The petition goes on to state:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress on the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to the banks.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Donna Cooper
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have the honour to present to the House a petition from the parents and family of Donna Cooper.
Donna was the innocent victim of a particularly mindless crime. She was killed by a stolen car driven recklessly by a person who had been released on bail the previous day. Her death at the tragically early age of 13 outraged the whole nation as well as her local community and helped to concentrate attention on the vital need to amend the law.
I must pay tribute to Donna's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Cooper, her brother and sister, her aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Hayward, and all their family and friends and those who have worked so enormously hard to raise the petition, which has been signed by 273,000 people.
I would also like to thank the Home Secretary for finding the time personally to receive from Mr. and Mrs. Cooper a petition raised by our local newspaper, the Evening Mail, containing more than 70,000 signatures. The petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urgently consider the need to increase the powers of the Courts given in the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992 as two years imprisonment (five if the injury is fatal) to better reflect the loss of a human life. Sentencing should be also punitive and exemplary.
To lie upon the Table.

Social Policy Protocol (Confidence Motion)
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to today's main motion.
9.46 am
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That this House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.
After yesterday's motion, the Cabinet thought it right to bring this motion immediately before the House. I said yesterday to the House that European policy had created a division in British politics for 20 years. We have seen the effects of that vividly over recent months. If asked, most people in the country would say that the House has spent most of its time in the past year doing nothing but debate the European Communities treaty. It has, indeed, been fully debated, but the House has done a great deal more. In one parliamentary Session, it has passed a large number of reforming Bills—on education, asylum, housing and urban renewal, trade union reform, and personal pensions. One third of our manifesto at the last election will have been enacted by the end of this parliamentary Session, and that is much to the advantage of the British nation.
Most of that will have been masked from public gaze by the disputes over European policy. Not only has that legislation been passed, but, over the same period, we have moved clearly from recession to growth. It is now clear that growth prospects for the year are likely to exceed earlier forecasts.
Those are some of the realities of what has occurred over the past year. Britain is now moving back into recovery, ready for significant sustained growth with low inflation. At the general election, that was the prescription which we promised and it is now becoming clearer day by day that that is what is being delivered to the British nation.
Against that background, it is in our national interest that we keep up the pace of reform and the pace of recovery. Parliament must put this stalemate over Europe behind it. I am not prepared to let it poison the political atmosphere any longer. The boil must be lanced, and it must be lanced today. Therefore, I shall set out in the clearest possible terms the implication for today's debate.
We have before us a motion of confidence in the Government, with all the implications that flow from that. Lest there be any doubt in the mind of any hon. Member, the issue of confidence also extends to the Opposition's amendment. No hon. Member should be under any misapprehension about that, even though its terms are intended to entrap the unwary. It is precisely the amendment that was defeated yesterday.
At the conclusion of this debate, either the Government will have won the vote of confidence and we can proceed with our policy, subject to one outstanding court case, or we shall have lost and I shall seek a dissolution of Parliament.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later. I want to make a little progress now.
626
This debate is about the Government's policy of rejecting the social chapter. I shall spell out the disadvantages so that no one can misunderstand me. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) quoted from the social chapter. He made it sound innocuous, harmless and even benign. If he wants to keep his blinkers on, so be it—but let Conservative Members be in no doubt about the costs and the implications of the social chapter.
Measures that the Community has already brought forward, which abuse health and safety provisions, show us the scale of the costs likely to be involved in the social chapter's provisions. The working time directive orginally would have cost British industry £5 billion; by our efforts, that figure has been substantially reduced. The part-time directive orginally would have cost £1 billion; largely by our efforts, that directive has been stalled. The young workers directive would cost up to £150 million. Those are just three provisions, but they add up to more than £6 billion in potential costs. I could add to that (list. If the social chapter came into being, those costs would be added to for every single business in this country, with the inevitable effect on jobs.
Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that employers would have to meet those costs, and more, under the social chapter. There would be higher prices, lost jobs and less competitiveness. That is the policy which the right hon. and learned Gentleman espouses. He may wish to indulge himself by voting for the social chapter—he has the luxury of being able to strike attitudes—but we must deal in realities. He would not have to pay the price of his attitudes. The price would be paid by millions of men and women working hard to hold down jobs, bring up families and improve their working conditions.
At any time, the social chapter would be an unwarranted intrusion into British life; but now, just when recovery is beginning to emerge, it would put recovery at risk. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to take my word for it, perhaps he will take the word of the chairman of ICI—[Interruption.] Labour Members may choose to scoff and sneer at the chairman of ICI, but it is his company which provides jobs in their constituencies. It is the policy of Labour.Members which would cost their constituents those jobs.
What the chairman of ICI had to say—perhaps the Opposition would care to listen to and reflect upon it—was:
"Continental Europe is currently in deep recession while the UK has the beginnings of an economic recovery… It is…asbsolutely vital that business does not have imposed upon it additional costs which are unnecessary and which, in turn, could hinder the recovery."
Those are not my words, but the words of one of the most senior business men in this country.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to hinder the recovery, or does he think that he knows more about British industry than Sir Denys Henderson, who runs ICI? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really want to impose the social chapter and hazard the recovery now coming through, especially the five consecutive monthly falls in unemployment? It is self-evident that that is exactly what he wishes to do. The most fatuous comment this House has heard for months was his assertion yesterday that the social chapter would create jobs, not cost them. Only in the unemployment offices would it create jobs.
Mr. Tony Marlow: What does my right hon. Friend say in response to the argument put forward by many respectable business men that if we ratify this wretched treaty but we do not have the social chapter, things will be done through the social chapter by the other 11 countries which, through other aspects of the treaty, will then be imposed on the United Kingdom? If we are not there, we cannot control and restrain them.
The Prime Minister: I would say what many business men would have said to my hon. Friend had he asked them—that he is talking nonsense. The business men of this country have made it absolutely clear that they support ratification of the Maastricht treaty without the social chapter. I fail to understand why my hon. Friend wishes to impose extra costs on companies in his constituency of Northampton, North and put his constituents out of work. I hope that he can justify that to them.
I repeat that the Government cannot afford to, and will not, throw away the recovery. The social chapter is a risk which we will not take.
Mr. Benn: In making this debate a vote of confidence, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said that if the Government lose there will be a general election. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a straightforward question: has he asked the Queen to grant a dissolution? Has she agreed to grant a dissolution? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that—as has happened in the past—she might say, "It is only a new Parliament. There are other leaders who might take it on"? She might refuse a dissolution.
The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear that if we lose the Division today I will seek a dissolution of Parliament. If the Government cannot carry their business, a dissolution of Parliament would undoubtedly be granted. The fact is that yesterday a disparate group of Members, voting for different interests on the same matter, chose to defeat the Government on a matter for which there is a genuine majority in the House. I repeat that the Government regard this as an issue of confidence and we will seek the dissolution of Parliament if we are defeated today.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister, during proceedings in this House, to say that a dissolution would undoubtedly be granted, thereby appearing to put words in the mouth of the sovereign?
Madam Speaker: It is for all hon. Members and Ministers to make their own comments, not for the Speaker of this House to interpret them or comment upon them.
The Prime Minister: It is interesting to know in reality how unready the Liberal Democrates are for an election—[Interrupt ion.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take a point of order.
Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister's speech, and his whole case, is based upon what he considers to be the evils that are contained in the social chapter—a document which was issued in 1989 and was referred to in the reply to yesterday's debate.
628
From the researches of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), it emerged yesterday in a written answer that he received from a Minister that the social charter has never been presented or published by Her Majesty's Government in Britain. Is it not the case that that charter, which is at the heart of this debate, has not been published by the Government, is not on the Table of the House, and is not in the Vote Office, so how can we proceed sensibly to consider this matter? Is it not the case that this whole debate is being conducted on hearsay and prejudice without the proper documentation being before the House?
Madam Speaker: We are proceeding today under an Act of Parliament that has already passed through this House.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that I spent nearly four years in the Whips Office—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] During that time, I was instructed not to apply any overt duress—[Laughter.] I will rephrase that, for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who are unable to follow the narrative. I was advised not to apply pressure or duress overtly in order to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote one way or another. I tried to obey that advice. Is not the Prime Minister's reference to the prospect of a general election creating improper pressure on the many Conservative Members whose seats are in jeopardy?
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I, too, was in the Whips Office, in support of a Government who did not have a majority—and I know all about duress.
The Prime Minister: The House is full of former Whips.
At this moment, Britain is uniquely placed in regard to the rest of Europe—a "paradise for investors", as M. Delors so kindly put it. There is no doubt that Britain—with low inflation, low interest rates, competitive labour costs and competitive interest rates—has the leading edge in the marketplace in Europe. The Government have no intention of throwing away those hard-won advantages, as the social chapter would compel us to do.
The obsession that some Opposition Members have with the social chapter is bizarre. They want more regulation and more social costs just as the rest of Europe is seeking to draw back from extra social costs. France is curbing spending on health and pensions. Holland is freezing social security benefits. Germany is cutting back unemployment assistance and job creation schemes. They are doing so because they realise that Europe must keep all its costs down to compete in the world.
Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about competitiveness in Europe, but Europe must compete with the United States and Japan as well. All across Europe people know that Europe is losing competitiveness at present. Twenty years ago, the unemployment rate across Europe was 60 per cent. of that in the United States. Today, it is 60 per cent. above the United States. That is largely because of the extra costs that we have placed on our businesses, running their competitiveness and damaging their employment prospects.

629
The Opposition may seek to make gestures and price people out of work, but the Government's job is to put them back in work—and that is the policy which we shall follow.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister is making another knocking speech against the social chapter. The reality is that he believes that he can politically survive today only if he threatens his entire party with self-destruction in a general election campaign. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how often and how long such a tactic can be successfully employed?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, with his curious voting pattern on Europe, represents a part of the United Kingdom which has done remarkably well out of inward investment because of our membership of the European Community—a membership which he would have done well to support in the Lobbies last night with the Government. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will have noted how he voted.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. History shows that down the years sordid deals on the Floor of the House have cost the lives of countless people in the north of Ireland. Does not the Prime Minister have a duty today to tell the House what deal he did with the nine Ulster Unionists to buy their votes yesterday, contrary to their manifesto? Will you, Madam Speaker, also ask the Prime Minister to rule that the definition of an honest man is one who, once he has been bought, stays bought?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that those matters are not for me but for debate.
The Prime Minister: I will clear up the matter for the hon. Gentleman so that he is left in no doubt. Nothing was asked for, nothing was offered, and nothing was given. So perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to withdraw his remark. He might also bear in mind that unemployment in the part of the United Kingdom that he represents is very high, as he never ceases to remind the House. He, too, would make it higher, by the way that he cast his vote in the Divisions that we have had.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—particularly, given his latter remarks, as I am wearing the Anglo-Irish tie. Further to his comments yesterday, which he has just repeated, does he agree that so severe has the recession become in the other European countries that, although no specific proposals for the social chapter have yet been made, when they are published in due course we shall find that they are milder than the social action programme that the Government already accept under the social dimension? May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend what all the fuss is about?
The Prime Minister: I will tell my hon. Friend what all the fuss is about. Once we adhere to the social protocol, it will be there for good—not just for the brief period in which our partners in Europe may be wary about bringing matters forward.
Mr. William Cash: Given that the motion deals specifically with the adoption of the protocol on social policy, will my right hon. Friend tell me how we shall be able to go ahead with it when it is expressly
630
excluded by the Act of Parliament that was passed last week but is included in the treaty that my right hon. Friend signed?
The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend, despite his close study of the matter, has perhaps misunderstood the domestic legislation that we have been examining. If he cares to read it more carefully—perhaps he could take some time to do so before we vote this afternoon—he will understand the whole matter a little better.
The Government were elected just over a year ago with the largest popular vote in British history. It was a vote for policies for economic recovery, which we are now getting, for private enterprise, which we will sustain, and for individual freedom, which we are extending.
Mr. John Hume rose—
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have generously given way, and I wish to make some progress.
The social chapter would put much of that at risk. What the electors did not vote for at the last election was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policies: increased inflation, corporatism and state intervention, a reverse of trade union reform, and craven compliance and abject surrender in the face of every regulation coming from Brussels. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are only too ready to advance socialism through Europe, never ready to stand up to battle for British ideas and British ideas in Europe.
One whiff of a new regulation, a new burden or a new cost from Europe and the right hon. and learned Gentleman yelps that he wants it too. No doubt as a small boy he was avid for measles and desperate for chicken pox as well. What is more, he says, without these new burdens Britain will become a sweatshop economy. It would be a great help if, during the recess, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would go out into industry and meet some of the people who run it.
What would the social chapter do to much of other parts of legislation? Gone, reluctantly and sadly in the minds of Opposition Members, are the days when the trade unions held such sway in this country. They held it to ransom month after month, year after year. Now all they hold is the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ransom, issue by issue—not the Leader of the Opposition, but the trade unions' glove puppet when it comes to policy. The social chapter would put much of that in reverse gear. The last thing we want is a Government committed to putting union bosses back in the boardroom, and I cannot believe that the House will vote for that.
Many countries in the European Community are now going into recession, and that is where the obsession with extra regulation would put us back as well, just as we have emerged from it. I cannot understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants us to adopt the social chapter when other countries are beginning to realise its costs and burdens. As the president—
Mr. Hume rose—
The Prime Minister: I have given way sufficiently.
As the president of the CBI said in The Times yesterday—[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like these quotes from people who understand business but they are going to get them. He said:

631
"A Commons vote tonight leading to inclusion of the social chapter in the ratified Maastricht treaty would set back the cause of common sense and competitiveness in Europe by sevaral years."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will shortly be the first Labour leader to speak to the CBI; perhaps before he goes he should start listening to the CBI, too.
Other countries around the world are beginning to realise the effect of excessive social costs. The chairmen of our leading banks yesterday may it perfectly clear that their concern—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not care. I am talking about the people who run industry and commerce, but the Opposition do not care. They do not mind how many people are unemployed if they can salve their consciences. The chairmen made it clear that people outside, European business men, are
"concerned about the costs and over-rigid labour and social benefit structures in their own countries, and see the social chapter as adding to this problem."
Only Opposition Members fail to be able to see that.
The choice because the House today could not be clearer. The Government have opened up new opportunities for people with low inflation and for union members to have more say in their affairs, more opportunities for home owners and more opportunities for business to compete abroad. By contrast, the Opposition offer policies of opportunism, not opportunity, at every level.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said last year:
"I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht treaty", yet that is exactly what he did last night. He claims to be an ardent European. He said:
"I have always believed that Britain's future lies in Europe, and that we must take a confident and leading role in the European Community."
So what has the ardent European done in the last year? He voted against Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. He voted against Maastricht in the paving debate; he voted against Maastricht last night. What did he do on Second Reading of the Single European Act, this ardent European? He abstained. What did he do on Second Reading of the Maastricht Bill, this ardent European? He abstained. On Third Reading, the ardent European abstained. Mr. Valiant-for-Abstention—the ardent European. Perhaps, out of sheer habit, he will abstain when we come to the vote this afternoon. Some European, and some principles! As Dr. Johnson said of a man with allegedly good principles, "He does not wear them out in practice"; and neither does the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He wears his principles lightly so that he may discard them whenever convenient.
This country cannot afford to let this stalemate on European policy continue. It is against the interests of government in this country to do so. This House must decide today whether it is prepared to sustain the Government in office or encourage me to seek a dissolution. We did not lightly bring this motion forward, but the matter could not have been left any longer. It has to be decided, and the only way to decide it is to reject the social chapter. If this country were to accept it, it would mean an end to recovery, a return to corporatism, and an end to competitiveness. That is not the way forward for this country, and I hope that the House will decisively reject it.
10.16 am
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.'.
Last night, the Prime Minister suffered a humiliating and crushing defeat. It was a defeat not only on a crucial plank of his European policy but on the single issue which is taken as the flagship of his Administration.
With no hint of modesty, and clearly no inkling—not even a clue—of the problems to come, the Prime Minister advertised his visit to Maastricht as game, set and match. Nineteen months later, after endless footfaults, double faults and mishits, he was struggling with a tie-break. Today, like some petulant tennis prima donna, he is threatening to take his racquet away. Perhaps, after his next negotiating triumph in Europe, the Prime Minister would be better advised to use cricketing metaphor—but, then again, perhaps not. After all, he was clean bowled yesterday and he has been forced to follow on today.
Today, in this debate and in this crucial vote, is the Prime Minister relying on the merits of his opt-out strategy, the force of his arguments and on the strength of his case? No, I fear not. He tried all that yesterday and look where it got him. The very centre of his case yesterday was that Britain had to opt in to Europe. He told us how crucial it was to be on the inside track, shaping events, defending Britain's interests, involved and influential in the councils of decision. In his portentous way, the Prime Minister warned us yesterday:
"If we wilfully throw away our capacity to defend our interests and promote our policies—this country will pay a dear price for that folly in the years to come."—[Official Report, 22 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 522.]
He was in his "Britain at the heart of Europe" mode, but he appeared throughout it all, as he has today, to be totally unaware of the fundamental contradiction that is right at the heart of his own argument.
The more the Prime Minister argued for Britain to be involved with real influence in all aspects of the European Community, the more he exposed the sheer absurdity of an opt out from the social protocol, which would give this country no influence and no power over what he claimed to be matters of great concern to the Community and to this country. The Prime Minister's version of being at the heart of Europe, apparently, is to be required to leave the room when the Community considers crucial social policy decisions. The triumph of the ace negotiator is an empty chair for Britain in the Council of Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman, just as appears to be the case today, appeared to be totally incapable of comprehending the disordered logic of his own case, which simply amounts to the bizarre claim that in order to opt in, Britain, somehow, has to opt out.
Nor has the Prime Minister been able to explain the pertinent questions that were asked from the Opposition side of the House yesterday about why, if the social chapter is such a disaster for this country, that penetrating piece of wisdom has not penetrated the mind of Chancellor Kohl, Mr. Balladur, whom the Prime Minister will be meeting on Monday, and Mr. Lubbers, or the mind of

633
members of any other European Community Governments with whom the Prime Minister seeks to have fraternal relations.
Mr. Hume: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, unlike the Prime Minister who obviously does not want to answer questions that he thinks are going to be about Northern Ireland. I had hoped that I could put my question to the Prime Minister, so perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer for him.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a very serious contradiction in the position of this country, which is one of the major contributors to the European Community budget and which will be paying for this costly social chapter that the Prime Minister talked about, when ordinary working people will not be allowed to benefit from the social chapter and when the Prime Minister will not be allowed to sit round the table when the budget for the social chapter is being distributed? It is illogical.
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has highlighted something that is becoming increasingly understood by the people of this country, as we now focus properly on the social protocol aspect of the debate. The people of this country do not understand why they have a Government who want to deny to them the social rights, the social opportunities and the social advantages which the whole Community wants for its citizens.
Mr. David Shaw: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: No.
Furthermore, many sensible employers in this country understand that it would he very wise to have a level playing field of social responsibility which would stop companies and countries trying to drive each other down in order to get a fleeting competitive advantage. The whole of the European Community—parties and Governments—is in favour of the social chapter, except for two the Prime Minister and his party and Mr. Le Pen and his party. I am bound to say that I am more proud of the company that I keep than of the company that the Prime Minister keeps.
We know from the terms of the Government's motion today that the Prime Minister has abandoned his flawed arguments. He has been backed against the wall and forced, in order to survive, to threaten his own party with electoral suicide.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I will certainly give way to one of the possible candidates for electoral suicide.
Mr. Oppenheim: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said the same thing in the last three elections and he lost each time, but I thank him for his courtesy, if that is the word, ih giving way. If labour market regulation is so good for workers, can he explain how it is that in Spain, which has some of the toughest employment laws in Europe and all the benefits of a socialist Government, there is 20 per cent. unemployment?
Mr. Smith: If Conservative economic policies for this country are so wise, I could ask the hon. Gentleman why it is that we have millions of unemployed people here.
634
[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Quiet. It is time that some members of the Cabinet went on their holidays. They might come back a little calmer and a little quieter. They should not allow the prospect of electoral suicide to upset them in the way that, apparently, it is doing, but they sit there worrying about electoral suicide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The simple answer is that all other parties in Europe understand that economic progress and social progress go together. That is understood on the left in Europe and on the right in Europe. It is also understood in the centre of Europe. The only place where it is not comprehended is here, by these people who are temporarily in charge of this country.
It appears not to have occurred to the Prime Minister that his tactic of employing a quasi motion of confidence in Her Majesty's Government is not a sign of confidence but a display of weakness. The Prime Minister lost the argument in a House in which he has a clear overall majority on the most important aspect of his legislative programme—one which, moreover, he has stamped with his own personal design and authority. As a result of his failure, he has been forced to make a humiliating threat to his own party: that unless Conservative Members come into the Government Lobby today he will press the self-destruct button of a general election, which both he and they know would result in a massive defeat for this Government and in the loss of their seats.
I noticed that one of the rebels said on radio or television this morning or yesterday that a general election would result in the loss of possibly one third of the Conservative seats in this House of Commons—hardly a sign of confidence. It is hardly a symbol of authority to go to your own party and say, "If I can't drag you into the Lobby, I'll give your electors a chance to get rid of you." That is this man of confidence, this triumphant hero of the negotiating table, this self-confident leader of the Conservative party. Former leaders of the Conservative party will be turning in their graves when they think of what is being done in the name of the Conservative party today.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: As a connoisseur of knock-about, I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman, though knock-about is not very prime ministerial. [Interruption.] I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to my constituency, where I should like him to see whether he can find one group of business people who support the position that he takes. Why does he show such contempt for business people in my constituency? Will he come to my constituency and meet the business community? Not one of them agrees with him. They enjoy his knock-about, but they do not agree with his policies.
Mr. Smith: I should be happy to go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency during a general election, when the hon. Gentleman would have to face the business people in his constituency. I hope that he would also consult the working people in his constituency—the employees as well as the managing directors.
The Prime Minister gave us a list of industrialists and bankers. I am not astonished that the chairmen of banks signed a letter that the Prime Minister sent round to them. Bankers are not noted for refusing to sign letters from Prime Ministers when they are asked if they will kindly add their signature to help the Prime Minister out in a debate

635
in the House of Commons. He might do better to rely on the strength of his arguments than on the fleeting support of some commercial banks.
We noticed throughout the debate constant references to managing directors, senior executives and the heads of employers' organisations. Why is no thought given to the millions of working people in this country and throughout the Community? The Conservative party no longer wants to represent people who work for a living. It no longer wants to represent working people. It is becoming the redoubt of the privileged and the elite—the people who, as wages fall for the poorest, are constantly increasing their wages, pensions, perks and benefits.
Sir Donald Thompson: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps during the general election in four years' time he will come to my constituency, which has been on the list for Labour gain in the last four elections. For almost the past 20 years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends have promised to win the next election. Ordinary people in my constituency do not want them and will not have it.
Mr. Smith: I think that we should put the matter speedily to a test. It is within the power of every Conservative Member to join us in the Lobby today to ensure that a general election is called. After all, if the Government believe that they have the right policies and the support of the people, they have nothing to fear from a general election. The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that they would be able to come back with the prospect not of three or four years in power, although that must be rather uncertain in the present situation, but with five years in power. Why do not they seize the advantage that they are being offered by the Opposition? What is troubling the Conservative party?
Sir Teddy Taylor: If the Maastricht treaty goes through, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there will be many issues to talk about in general elections?
Mr. Smith: I think there will be quite a number of issues to discuss. If the hon. Gentleman asks his constituents, he will find that many of them would like to talk to him about the imposition of VAT on heating bills.
Miss Emma Nicholson: I worked on the social charter in Brussels on behalf of the House as a member of the Select Committee on Employment. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that significant social benefits on health and safety flow from the Single European Act, which many other EC national states, such as Greece, have not implemented? Does not he believe, in all honesty, that it would be better properly to implement such measures, which will protect children, women and disabled people, than to pile Peleon on Ossa "and make the structure of the European Community's social policy so top heavy that it will bring everything down?
Mr. Smith: When the hon. Lady was taking part in these discussions in Europe she must have had daily contact with the other 11 nation states that take part in the deliberations of the Community. She must have met their Members of Parliament and leaders. She will know, as we
636
all know in the House, that every one of them wants the social protocol to be included in the treaty. None of them appears to have the fears and worries that are expressed by the Conservative party.
It is interesting that the Conservative party has become so blinkered on this issue that it cannot comprehend that there is any other point of view; but there is and it sometimes comes from the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) asked the Prime Minister today, "What is all the fuss about?" That view is held in the Conservative party. It is held by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E.
Heath). Speaking in one of our debates, he said:
"When it comes to the social chapter, I would ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government to move with extreme caution. I do not accept the figures that have been given by the Government or, in particular, by the Secretary of State for Employment on the consequences of the social chapter, and nor does the majority of people in the Community."[Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 405.]
If the Prime Minister and his colleagues cannot even persuade a former Conservative Prime Minister not only of the strength of their argument but of the veracity of statistics, it is an extremely revealing insight into modern Conservative Government.
The Prime Minister must have contact with other leaders when he goes to these jolly gatherings of the European People's party. What was it that made Chancellor Kohl so disordered and confused that he has ended up being a socialist? He does not look much like a socialist to me. When Mr. Balladur comes to see the Prime Minister on Monday, will he say, "You did well, John, keeping Britain out of the social chapter"? Of course he will not. Will he say to the Prime Minister, "Good morning, comrade"? The right-wing Government of France will not withdraw from the social protocol of the European Community. The Government can issue a statement after Mr. Balladur's visit on Monday to clear the matter up. Chancellor Kohl told the German trade union conference that he would fight for the social chapter being kept in the European treaty. I wonder how he managed to do that.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.
Mr. Mark Fisher: This is an assassination.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Fisher—order.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there are 17 million unemployed people in Europe. The Prime Minister reminded us that employment in Europe used to be 60 per cent. less than in the United States; it is now 60 per cent. higher. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) reminded us that unemployment in Spain is 20 per cent. German employment is rising beyond our own. When my right hon. Friend goes to the Copenhagen summit, and when we go to Tokyo, people from Europe express concern about what they call the structural employment that has developed in Europe in the last 10 years.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that everybody else in Europe is acutely aware of the heavy and excessive non-wage social costs that are being imposed on labour in the Community, he is very much mistaken.

637
He would be in a minority of one in invoking all the stuff that he is now invoking and threatening to put more costs on employment if ever there were a Labour Government in this country.
Mr. Smith: I think that I can say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: his speech was a little more effective than the Prime Minister's. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I will answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman very directly, but before I do let us reflect on what result he wants in the Lobby this afternoon. I think that I am indulging in the considerable art of generosity in letting all the aspirants make their speeches now.
The Chancellor is right to say that the people of Europe are concerned about the state of their economies. Who could be anything but concerned when employment is at its current level? However, other countries in the European Community do not see the social protocol as a reason for that employment. Apart from everything else, the issue of pay is not a part of the social protocol, as I said in yesterday's debate.
The Prime Minister's case is that other countries in Europe are seeking to follow the British Conservative party's fearless way forward. I see that the Secretary of State for Employment is nodding—no doubt he will give that message to the European People's party in his little office in Smith square—[Interruption.] I notice that the Secretary of State does not like to hear such references.
If the Government were winning supporters for their view, why did the communique at the Edinburgh summit affirm that the Community would proceed with all aspects of the social chapter? The Prime Minister and his colleagues sought to argue against it, but the whole of the rest of the Community reaffirmed its commitment to the treaty's social provisions as recently as the Edinburgh summit.
Mrs. Anglea Browning: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Lady. Conservative Members want me to make progress, but their hon. Friends keep interrupting.
Mrs. Browning: I am listening with interest to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. He seems to be speaking for particular groups of people—our European partners and the politicians who represent various countries and policies. When will he speak for the people of this country?
Mr. Smith: I shall be delighted to speak to and for the people of this country in the next general election. We could all speak and make our case in the election campaign which may come. I keep being diverted from my case by irrelevant interruptions from Conservative Members. It was not I who tabled the motion of confidence; it was the Prime Minister.
The question that troubles more than the Prime Minister's rebels—it might even occur to some Cabinet Members who are sitting looking at me—is how the Prime Minister managed to get himself into this mess. After all, he must have known—as they must have known—that the House of Commons could not indefinitely be denied the opportunity to vote on whether the social chapter should be part of the treaty. The Prime Minister tried to duck and weave, to postpone and evade throughout the lengthy deliberations on the Bill—[Interruption.]
Mr. David Shaw rose—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Smith: As the House knows, the Prime Minister was finally cornered when the Government had to accept new clause 74 of the Bill, which became section 7 of the Act under which we are debating the motion. That was an amendment presciently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) as the ticking time bomb.
When the amendment was accepted by the Foreign Secretary on behalf of the Government, it was discounted in the usual dismissive tones of the Tory Whips and apologists—those brilliant managers of events. It was believed that with a bit more arm-twisting and a few more tearful encounters in the Whips Office, it would be all right on the night; but it was not. The ticking time bomb blew up, not only wiping the smug smiles off the faces of the Tory Whips, but destroying the Prime Minister's credibility and authority.
When it came to the crunch, the Prime Minister could not command the support of his own party. Yesterday we saw, as so often before, a Government prepared to do anything and say anything to get themselves out of their latest self-constructed humiliation. Yesterday, Government policy on the exchange rate mechanism changed between the Prime Minister's speech and the closing speech of the Secretary of State for Employment, for no other reason than to entice a Conservative Member of Parliament into the Lobby. I suppose one could say that at least that was done in the open. Who knows what shady deals were stitched up of which we do not yet know?
All those actions came from a Prime Minister who yesterday and today has had the gall to talk about cynical alliances. I sometimes think that when the Prime Minister selects a weapon, it is the boomerang which he finds most convenient.
What we witnessed yesterday and are participating in today is just the latest in the series of crisis after crisis which is the defining characteristic of this Administration. The Government are destroying our coal industry, causing chaos in schools, threatening our railway network and proposing to tax millions of families on the heating of their homes in order to pay for the feckless incompetence of the Government's economic policies. They are the very Government who threaten the public services on which millions of our fellow citizens depend. What is more, they constantly undermine our democracy by the constant arrogation of power unto themselves.
The Government have betrayed pledge after pledge and bungled policy after policy; they are now in disarray and defeat. Today, I hope that the House will vote for the Labour amendment which will give the British people the same rights and opportunities as are available throughout the rest of the European Community. By courtesy of the Prime Minister, we can do more than that. The House can express its lack of confidence in a Government who have no confidence and deserve none. I invite the House to do so.
10.47 am
Mr. Tom King: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on an extremely witty and entertaining speech. The House has had the privilege of hearing a distinguished

639
advocate displaying his skills. It does not matter what the subject is, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has only to be given a brief and then, with a few jokes and the training which he has practised in many courts in the land, he can keep the jury amused and try not to let its members come too close to the argument.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman had an unparalleled advantage. There are many of us in the House who, having made our speech and sat down, then think of all the things that we wanted to say. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had the enviable advantage of being able to return the next day to make all the comments that he wished he had made the day before. As a result, he made a much more amusing speech today than he did yesterday. However, the big gap in his lawyer's brief which shone through yesterday and today was the unfortunate way in which, in seeking to appeal to the so-called employees, the workers, he brought out the worst elements among Opposition Members as they displayed their contempt for employers.
Looking at all the Opposition Members, I know that all of them would run to a company that said that it was hoping to bring another 100 jobs into their constituencies. Are not those Opposition Members the very people who, together with employers, lobby Ministers to try to get extra grants and establish new enterprises in their constituencies? Yet those same Opposition Members are here today lampooning the leaders of British industry and the people who bring the jobs. Without good employers, there is no employment and there are no employees.
To say that there is a competition or a war taking place between employers and employees is the old language of 20 and 30 years ago—the language surrounding the old class war. It is to those old ideas that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East tries to appeal as he stands on top of the heaving mass of the Labour party —such an attempt does him no credit.
The most telling phrase in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's excellent speech was when he simply encouraged the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East to visit industry and to see industry for himself. I plead guilty to having worked all my life in industry before I came to the House. I do not make my next point to the discredit of lawyers, because there are probably one or two on the Government Benches at the moment. It is an honourable profession. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech reeked of the fact that he had a brief in his hand, that he was reading it and that he did not really understand it. The most unedifying episode yesterday was when he quoted the director-general of UNICE, whom the French, rather charmingly, would call a fonctionnaire. He tried to pray him in aid against all the leaders and active employers in Europe.
We are hopeful—I believe now confident—that we are seeing a return of economic growth in this country. However, it is noticeable that some hon. Members are now behaving as if that growth is guaranteed and as if we can be certain that it will continue. Every hon. Member knows that the fight to get to that position has been tough and that the pain has been very great. We shall try to continue that growth against the trend in France and against the trend in Germany, which is in the opposite direction.
640
Those are two of our main markets. We should never forget that six of the eight top export markets for Britain are in the European Community and that the rest of the European Community is going into economic retreat. The present situation is fragile and anyone who takes risks with the chance of economic growth betrays their constituents.
Even Mr. Delors, to his credit, has now recognised that Europe faces a crisis of uncompetitiveness. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brought out clearly, Europe used to be competitive with America, but we are now in the opposite position of being uncompetitive compared with the largest modern economy in the western world.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we now have a Prime Minister who is more devoted to manufacturing industry than any Prime Minister has been in recent times? Is my right hon. Friend aware that our right hon. Friend intends to introduce a deregulation Bill in the next Session of Parliament which will help to improve our international competitiveness?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making two extremely important points. He and I share an interest in one particular manufacturing industry which we both represent in the House. I share his views on the matter.
Ten years ago, I was Secretary of State for Employment and I went to the Social Affairs Council. Europe then faced a crisis of rising unemployment. I shall remind the House who the other members of that Council were; many of the names will be familiar to hon. Members. There was Mr. Pierre Bérégovoy of France, socialist. There was Mr. Gianni De Michelis of Italy, socialist. There was Mr. Ruairi Quinn of Ireland, socialist. We had the German Minister of Labour, who was a trade unionist. We had Christian Democrats and myself, a Conservative Minister. When I first went to the Social Affairs Council, all the issues about which the House is now talking were on the table. There was paternity law, the Vredeling directive and the working hours directive. Initially my colleagues, certainly the socialist Ministers, were in favour of those proposals, but, as we discussed the matter further and as unemployment increased in their countries and across Europe, we all recognised—this was the view that we as Conservatives already took—that we simply could not afford to add extra costs to employers and that if we did, we would, in the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, betray the working people of Europe. It is no good making tub-thumping speeches as though employees will not have their interests best protected by worthy and responsible employers.
After I had listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East yesterday, I left the Chamber. I had listened to him reading his brief about what was supposed to be the view of people in European industry. I advise him to leave now because he will not like the next bit when I tell him something about industry. I went to a meeting to discuss investment in this country. I talked to a Japanese and I talked to a British company that has investment in France where, sadly, with the fall in the economy and with the sharp recession, employers find that every redundancy costs them £25,000. Many might say that that is socially sensible and desirable. Many might think how wonderful it is that everyone who loses a job gets that amount. However, an employer starting a new business and wondering whether he can afford to take on

641
an extra employee will know that he is putting his head into that noose. How will that encourage growth in employment?
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is so difficult to make individuals redundant in France that, by contrast, people often have to close down the entire company, thus making unemployed people whom they would not otherwise wish to make unemployed? The net result is higher unemployment than we have in this country and unemployment that is rising rapidly.
Mr. King: In that one sentence, my hon. Friend has shown that she knows considerably more about employment problems in Europe than does the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. What she has said is precisely correct. Sadly, in one case about which I heard yesterday, that is precisely what happened. The company has gone bankrupt since it cannot afford to keep the people it would like to keep because of the huge costs of redundancy for the people it is necessary to ask to leave to slim down the business. The reality is that the social charter would be a disaster at this time for our country. That is why in the interests not of employers, but of jobs and employment in this country, I strongly support the position of my right hon. Friend and the Government.
I shall address one word to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have serious reservations about the issue. They have made their point very clear in these debates. Some of them, tragically, made their views known in the Lobbies last night. That situation is now past. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) on the radio this morning, as other hon. Members may have done. The choice now is not the option of stopping Maastricht. The choice is clear, however much the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East may avoid coming directly to the point. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will deal with this when he winds up. Were, by any awful chance, the Government to lose the vote today, were Her Majesty to grant a dissolution and were, by some even more awful mischance, the Labour party to be elected, I take it that we could assume that Labour would then speed to the ratification of the Maastricht treaty with the social chapter.
Mr. George Robertson indicated assent.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman kindly nods his head. That shows clearly that there are now two choices before the House. The choice is either the Maastricht treaty with the social chapter or the Maastricht treaty without the social chapter. I emphasise the point again because in the noise, not all hon. Members may have heard it. I say again, in case any of my hon. Friends think that there is one last squeeze of the lemon in this situation, that the only choice is to vote on the amendment with the Government and on the main question with the Government. That is the only way in which we can protect our constituents and those in jobs, and that is the best chance for the economic recovery to go forward. That gives the best chance for good government and future stability for our country.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is nearly 11 o'clock—under the rules governing our proceedings on a Friday, the point at which I must ask you, as I asked you at 9.35 am, whether. The
642
Foreign Secretary has requested to make a statement on the important and sensitive negotiations that were concluded yesterday in Baghdad by Dr. Rolf Ekeus on behalf of the United Nations, which resulted in a compromise, and on whether such compromise would include any alleviation of sanctions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have received no request from a Minister to make a statement on anything.
11 am
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is always interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), although I must say that I found the right hon. Gentleman's comments on bankruptcy somewhat odd coming from the mouth of someone who was for a long time a member of a Government who have presided over the highest level of bankruptcies that this nation has seen in the past half century. I also wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to read the social chapter, as most of his arguments about why we should not adopt it were completely irrelevant to its terms.
Ostensibly, we are here today to debate the social chapter. My party's position on the social chapter has been clear. It is the subject of a manifesto commitment. That position remains as I described it to the House yesterday, and I have no particular desire to repeat it today. The Government's attempt to build the social chapter up into a great socialist engine that will roll over the British economy and British jobs may convince Conservative Members but it will not convince anyone else.
Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
Mr. Ashdown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress first.
It is important that Britain should be aware of the kind of industrial base that we want to build—an industrial base that will produce quality goods in world markets, based on high investment, high value added and on a work force that is valued. That is the place for Europe and it is the place for Britain. The Government seem to want Britain to turn into a low-cost economy. I can tell them only that, if that happens, we shall be creating not a sweatshop economy—I do not go along with that assertion—but an economy that has to compete not with the best in the world but with other low-cost economies such as those emerging in eastern Europe and the far east. Those other low-cost economies will be far more effective than ours, and the result will be economic decline. That is not what I seek and it is not what is sought in the social chapter. Britain should value its work force; we should be engaged in the production of quality goods through a quality work force.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was entirely right: the social chapter is no more than a series of broad aspirations. It represents little advance on the social chapter of the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act under the premiership of Baroness Thatcher.
If we vote against the social chapter, we shall be excluding ourselves from the shaping of a European institution. The Prime Minister's arguments yesterday about Britain needing to be at the heart of Europe are belied by his requirement that we leave a European institution. To see what happens to European institutions

643
that are shaped without British influence, the House need look no further than the common agricultural policy. We chose to be out of the CAP; it was shaped without us. Today, we pay the price for that. That is exactly what will happen with the social chapter.
I see that the Prime Minister has left once again, so I shall say this to the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary made it clear on the "Today" programme this morning—to be fair, he has made it clear on every occasion—that last night's vote was not, as the Prime Minister sought to claim yesterday, about ratification. The right hon. Gentleman said quite clearly that it was "about the social chapter". I quote his words precisely. He and the Prime Minister know beyond peradventure that, right from the start, the Liberal Democrats have said privately, as we have said publicly, that, although the Government may always count on our votes if ratification is at risk, they can never count on our votes in support of the social chapter opt-out.
In the light of those public statements, our manifesto commitment and private confirmation of that position given months ago, right at the start of the process, for the Prime Minister to pretend otherwise is a discreditable misrepresentation of what he knows to be the truth.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I think not. The right hon. Gentleman is not tackling the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put to him. We understand that, following the right hon. Gentleman's fierce criticisms of the social chapter at the end of 1991, his views have undergone a sea change and he now supports it. Therefore, by his lights—which we think were mistaken—he was justified in voting for the Labour amendment yesterday. But when that amendment was defeated, the question was not whether the social chapter should be included—
Mr. Ashdown: Yes it was.
Mr. Hurd: No. The question then became whether we should be able to proceed to ratification. That was the essence of the second vote and, by his conduct in that vote, the right hon. Gentleman showed that his aim was neither the inclusion of the social chapter nor ratification but simply to embarrass the Government.
Mr. Ashdown: God forbid that I should ever seek to embarrass the Government. The Foreign Secretary is wrong, and he knows that he is wrong. Let me make it clear to him. I asked the Minister who was present during my speech to tell me what we were voting for in the first and second votes last night. I asked whether we were voting on the social chapter, as the Government were trying to persuade their rebels we were, or for ratification. Needless to say, the Minister completely failed to answer. Why? Because the Government's game throughout has been to send two different messages, on this question as on so much else. This goes to the heart of the fraudulence and weakness of their position. The Government sought to tell their own rebels that yesterday's debate was about the social chapter, while portraying it to us as about ratification. If it was about ratification, what are we doing discussing the social chapter today? It was not about ratification. The ratification of the Maastricht treaty was
644
never at risk last night. What was at risk last night was our inclusion in the social chapter and the rights that it would provide for British citizens.
Mr. James Wallace: Does my right hon. Gentleman agree that the real test that should be applied to the Foreign Secretary's intervention is this: if, by two votes the other way, the Labour amendment had been carried last night and the substantive motion had been amended, would the Government have supported that motion and proceeded to implement it?
Mr. Ashdown: My hon. Friend asks whether, had the votes gone the other way, ratification would have been damaged. Of course it would not. We know that that is not the real reason why we are here this morning. The real reason is that the Prime Minister's strategy has totally failed. The Prime Minister has failed to provide a lead to his party and to the country. He has been more concerned to behave towards his party as a Government Whip than towards his nation as its Prime Minister and leader. That has been the Prime Minister's fatal mistake. In trying to send two different messages, the right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to portray Europe in all its positive aspects, which is what would have been necessary to enable him to carry the majority for Maastricht that exists in the House. He said one thing to his European partners, while pretending something totally different on his return to the House.
Time and again, the Prime Minister has ducked the issue and avoided the challenge. The issue of the social chapter need not have arisen now; he could have faced it months ago or weeks ago. But the Prime Minister delayed and delayed and has brought the matter before us at the very last moment. The only way that he can now get his way and get the treaty through is by staking his personal authority and the Government's survival. There you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is what we now have. The triumph of the Prime Minister's return from Maastricht with the opt out turned into a crisis of his own authority. That is the ball and chain which started off as game, set and match. The Prime Minister's problem is that he will not provide a lead or say where he wants to go. He will not give the nation or his own party the lead that is necessary.
Mr. Riddick: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The serious point—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should not throw stones if he is living in a glass house. I hope that his driving lessons are going well.
I have a serious point for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) which I do not believe the Opposition Benches have addressed. Why is the right hon. Member for Yeovil so ready to reject the very serious objections to the social chapter by the CBI, the engineering employers and all the other employers? That is a very serious point. Why does the right hon. Gentleman reject those objections?
Mr. Ashdown: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I believe them to be wrong in this matter. It is as simple as that.
Let me explain this to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). Throughout Europe, this issue is not seen in the terms in which the Government have persuaded some members of industry to see it. It is not seen as a threat to jobs. If it is such a threat to jobs, why is it that this

645
country over the past four years, without any of those social provisions, experienced the highest unemployment in the European Community? Comments from the Conservative party about unemployment come ill when the Government have presided over the largest rise in unemployment that we have ever seen.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this will be the last time that I will give way until I have made some progress.
Mr. Colvin: Which is the biggest threat to Westland —the social chapter or the 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure advocated by the right hon. Gentleman's party?
Mr. Ashdown: As someone who has worked in Westland. who knows the company and lives among it, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Westland has nothing to fear from the social chapter because Westland, as a good employer, already far exceeds the terms of the social chapter. That is one of the reasons why that firm and its products have been such a success.
We now see revealed the truth of this matter. The purpose of the opt out was, of course, nothing to do with Britain and everything to do with the divisions in the Conservative party. That is the truth which is now revealed. The Prime Minister returned from Europe with a piece of paper which he hoped would provide peace in his time in a party riven by civil war. However, the Prime Minister has learnt that appeasing those who oppose him only encourages them further. He now has a party which is so riven by civil war, so infected by its own internal enmities, that frankly it can no longer provide the effective united Government which this country needs.
Therefore, we are asked today to give the Government our confidence. We are asked to give them confidence when they have so comprehensively failed to provide leadership, not just to the country, but also to Europe in respect of the crucial issue of Bosnia. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who yesterday, from the mouth of the Prime Minister, said that they were not prepared to take action to prevent Sarajevo falling into the hands of the Serbs.
I dare say that what is happening in Bosnia today will have more effect on the shape of Europe than the entire Maastricht treaty which we have been negotiating for the past six months. The Government have totally failed to provide that leadership. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who have betrayed their election promises less than a year after they made them. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who have sought to close down the coal industry.
In addition, we are asked to give confidence to a Government who have been revealed as indulging in duplicity and deceit on a grand scale on the issue of Matrix Churchill. We are asked to give confidence to a Government over whom hangs the odour of decay and, I am bound to say, of sleaze. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who have damaged not only themselves and their own reputation, but the reputation of politics and the institution of our democracy.
Let the Prime Minister be under no illusions. When he forces his colleagues into the Division Lobby this
646
afternoon to vote for his motion and for him, they will not be expressing confidence in him; they will be expressing no confidence in their capacity to hold their seats under his leadership. At the end of the day, that is the fact of this afternoon's vote and that is the fact which will return and, in the end, do for him.
11.15 am
Sir Peter Emery: It is intriguing that the support for the Liberal Democrats seems to come more from the extreme members of the Labour party than from anyone else—
Mr. Terry Lewis rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: No, just sit down—[interruption.]
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to rule on a Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure who commenced his address to the House by speaking to the wall opposite and who then turned round, and spoke directly across the Floor of the House, neglecting the fact that you are presiding over these proceedings from the Chair—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I need no help from the hon. Gentleman or from any hon. Member in respect of whom to call and how they address the Chair.
Sir Peter Emery: As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not speak very often in the House. I speak only when there is someting that has to be said. What we have to say today is that the Government Benches absolutely and completely support the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Government and the Prime Minister's policies. That has to be said and clearly understood.
As it is perhaps the right thing to do according to the traditions of this House, I will refer to the speech made by the previous speaker, the leader of the Liberal Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The right hon. Gentleman suggested a criticism on Bosnia. I ask him directly across the Floor of the House now whether he is suggesting that we should today put troops into Bosnia to be shot at by all three sides and come back in British body bags. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting?
Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that he already has troops in Bosnia to be shot at by all three sides. They are being shot at by all three sides and, as the weeks and months pass, he will see that they will be in an increasingly dangerous position. I have said, and I continue to believe, that what we should have done and what we should now do, is put sufficient forces into Bosnia to make them capable of doing the job which I believe they should be there to do. They would be much safer if that were the case.
Sir Peter Emery: That means that the right hon. Gentleman would put British troops in to shoot at Serbs., Croats or anyone else who is behaving in a way of which the right hon. Gentleman does not approve. That is what he is really saying and the country should understand that properly.

647
In the same way, we need to understand from the speech made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil that he believes that the Westland aircraft company in his constituency would benefit from the social chapter. He referred to his experience with that company. However, I must tell him that that is not what the management says today. The right hon. Gentleman is out of date, as he always is, with regard to what is happening in the country as a whole.
The right hon. Member said that the social chapter does not seek economic decline. Of course that is right. However, the economic decline comes along because people are looking further than the immediate effect of the social chapter. It is not their wish for economic decline; it is because of some of the social structures that would have to be imposed on industry that that economic decline would come about.
We find it very strange that the leader of the Liberal Democrats suggests that he is still in favour of Maastricht when he had the simple opportunity last night to vote for a motion which would have ensured that Maastricht would go forward and be signed. He cannot in any way defend the situation that he tries to put forward in the debate today.
Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one bonus that came out of yesterday's events is that the Union has been strengthened? The Ulster Unionists actually voted with the Conservatives on those two votes yesterday and will do so again. Is it not time that we stopped pandering to Dublin? Is it not time that we stopped pandering to the Social Democratic and Labour party, which, of course, always votes against us in the House? Is not that a real bonus for the Union as a whole?
Sir Peter Emery: I do not need to go further than make it absolutely clear that the Procedure Committee, under my chairmanship, has recommended for some time that Northern Ireland should have a Select Committee dealing with its affairs.
What is such a shame about today's debate is the knockabout speech from the Leader of the Opposition. He is able to make a much better speech than that which he made today. He treated the House to nothing but a series of jokes that were prepared last night while burning the midnight oil. They do not cure the problems that the House is dealing with—the social chapter and the effect on the economy.
I never expected that today's debate on the confidence motion would actually have to be brought by the action of some of my own colleagues. That is a depressing and despondent factor. I find it very strange I have seen some people on my side over the past months negotiating nearly in public with the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip in order to defeat the Government. That is something which I never expected to see from Conservative Members. That has to be recorded absolutely.
Mr. David Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way.
Sir Peter Emery: I have given way to the Liberal Democrats once, so the hon. Gentleman can let me get on.
648
What we have to see absolutely clearly in the House, and which cannot be repeated enough during today's debate, is that there are only two options that—
Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman would like to sit down and let me finish the sentence, I might think about it.
What is clear beyond peradventure is that there can be one of only two outcomes: Maastricht without the social chapter or Maastricht with the social chapter. There is no alternative. My hon. Friends must understand that. If they cannot see that today's debate has only those two options, they cannot see anything about the problems that the House has to deal with.
Mr. Lewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman finished his sentence?
Sir Peter Emery: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lewis: It was a bit remiss of the right hon. Gentleman to link my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and myself with the Liberal Democrats.
However, the serious matter is that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of the Select Committee for Northern Ireland. As a distinguished Member and Chairman of the Procedure Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he obtained that information?
Sir Peter Emery: I have only repeated what is known fact which has been on the record on more than one occasion. The Procedure Committee has recommended a Select Committee for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Lewis: Has it made a decision?
Sir Peter Emery: That is not what I said. The hon. Gentleman must listen. I have said only that that is indeed what we have recommended.
I now turn to one aspect of the social chapter that has not been considered, and that is the effect on small industries. In my constituency, the vast majority of employment is provided by companies with fewer than 20 employees. It is those people who would be most affected by the regulations that would come from the social chapter. It is those smaller industries, which in time become big industries, which would most oppose the regulations in order to go forward in their own way.
It is interesting to record that the Leader of the Opposition said that no thought was given to working people. How wrong he was in that statement. It is in order to create jobs for working people that we are concerned with not having the social chapter, which works against the creation of jobs. It is to ensure that more jobs, not fewer, are available for the benefit of working people.
It is not, after all, just the industrialists. They, strangely enough, are the people who help to create jobs. They are the people who are likely to be able to provide employment. They are the people who are saying that the social chapter will not allow them to do what they want in creating expansion.
Therefore, it is also for working people to realise that the social chapter, although it might provide—let us be quite clear—some extra conditions in the long term for the benefit of people at work, will certainly not go further than

649
the regulations that we already have. In most aspects, we are well ahead of most countries in Europe, and we see European countries backing off madly from their initial agreement to the social chapter. Let us make certain that we do not have an extra millstone or burden around the neck of small businesses and small industry.
As an aside, I was interested to hear one of my colleagues last night say that all this would not have happened and that it would have been all right if we could have had a referendum. I thought that that issue was dead. I thought that both Houses of Parliament had buried it some time ago. In my constituency, we have really had a referendum. At the election, there was a candidate who stood with only one policy, and that was that Maastricht should be defeated. I am delighted to tell the House that he not only lost his deposit but only just defeated the raving loony green giant candidate.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: Other hon. Members want to speak, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harvey: Did not the right hon. Gentleman go around his constituency at the election telling people that he was opposed to a federal Europe? Did he not tell the listeners of Devon Air only this week that he is in favour of the Maastricht treaty precisely because it will create a federal Europe?
Sir Peter Emery: No, I did not. One has only to look at me to know that I am not in favour of a federal Europe, and the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as anybody else. [Laughter.] I am interesting, but many hon. Members want to speak.
The criticism of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the leader of the Labour party is unjust. We have seen firm decisions and firm decision making. We have seen a Prime Minister who has stood all the criticism that was made when we had to get inflation down. We must think of the criticism at the time that that policy should be abandoned—that policy which is now the launching pad for our growing economy at this moment at the end of recession. If there ever was a quick, sound and sensible decision, it was that which was made yesterday—when we did not obtain what was wanted—that we should discuss this motion today to get Maastricht settled and to go forward. This is a matter of sound, sensible and firm government from the Prime Minister, whom I am delighted to be able to support.
Today, it is necessary to ensure that we have a resounding vote in support of the Prime Minister's motion and a resounding defeat of the Labour party amendment. The Conservative party will then be able to leave for the summer recess with its tail up, in the knowledge that it is beginning to—[Laughter.] The Opposition may not like that. That is not what they want, of course. They do not want to see economic recovery that will bring success to this country, because that will lead to a success for the Conservative party.
We are set on a policy of success for the country—a success which will reflect properly on the success of the policy that the Prime Minister and the Government have pursued. I am proud to support it.
11.30 am
Mr. Tony Benn: When the speech of the Prime Minister and that of the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) are read and considered for the study of history, they will rank with some of the greatest speeches ever made in the House.
Sir Peter Emery: Thank you for that.
Mr. Benn: For example, when a Bill was introduced to abolish the practice of sending boys up chimneys in the 19th century, exactly the same speeches as those from the right hon. Gentleman were made. It was claimed that the Bill would destroy employment for young boys, who were doing a very good job going up chimneys.
When Samuel Plimsoll, who was a Member of Parliament, introduced legislation to put an end to the coffin ships by introducing the Plimsoll line, the then Prime Minister could have quoted "The Shipping Gazette", which described Samuel Plimsoll as a terrorist. That was the word used by the employers about any suggestion that social provision should be introduced to try to prevent thousands of sailors from dying in unsafe ships.
One could argue that the social chapter began with the Lloyd George Budget, which introduced national insurance. That was seen as a direct threat to employers, and right-wing Conservatives said that they would not stick the stamps on their domestic servants' cards because that practice threatened the women who worked for them.
I am looking forward to studying with great care the speeches that have been made on this issue, because they will rank with some of the most reactionary statements ever made.
Although I am not here to talk about the merits of the matter, it never seems to have occurred to the Prime Minister that if people are paid better wages, they buy goods from other people and that creates jobs.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: No, I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman bumbled on so ineffectively that he must allow me to develop my argument.
One man's wage increase is another man's job. That is what improved conditions would provide.
Mr. Hurd rose—
Mr. Benn: If the Foreign Secretary is about to intervene, I look forward to another radical intervention in the best 18th century style.
Mr. Hurd: I am not sure how far the right hon. Gentleman would carry his argument about chimney sweeps. Does he, for example, feel that it is all part of the righteous march of social progress to have a working time directive that would prevent boys from delivering newspapers in the morning? Would he regard that as an inexorable part of his objective?
Mr. Benn: The eight-hour day was introduced as a result of a campaign by the Trade Union Congress 100 years ago. By his casual intervention, the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he is still living in the 19th century.
The TUC objective was eight hours for our work, eight hours for our sleep and eight hours for our recreation. Nowadays, it is thought that trade unionists must not,

651
under any circumstances, have any role in deciding working conditions. We are told that we should listen to Sir Denys Henderson and all the employers of Europe telling us what to do. That is the most extraordinary example of the class war, but I will not go into it now because I am considering another issue today.
The issue before us is that if the House approves the motion, the Maastricht treaty will be ratified—for all I know, over the weekend. That will be achieved by telling certain Conservatives and others such as the leader of the Irish, the right hon. and devoted Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), that if they do not go along with that, the Prime Minister will go to the Queen and destroy Parliament. There will then be an election.
I ask myself whether that is a credible threat. The Prime Minister boasted that he received the biggest popular vote of any general election. I do not know whether he is right, but I presume that he would not have said it if his officials had not given him the figures.
The Government are 15 months old. Does anyone really believe that the Queen would say to the Prime Minister that he could destroy Parliament because of a difference over the social chapter? Does anyone believe that? It is not a credible threat.
Mrs. Currie: Yes, it is.
Mr. Benn: No, it is not. I shall cite some helpful examples in a moment because I have had a bit of experience of a Prime Minister who threatened to resign. Harold Wilson did just that, and I shall tell the House exactly what happens when a Prime Minister is so foolish as to threaten.
If the pro-federalists are right, we are discussing how we will be governed in Europe for hundreds of years to come. That will be decided on the question whether there will be an election on some marginal improvement in social conditions. I do not believe that the social chapter amounts to very much. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made that clear.
The Prime Minister is threatening the destruction of an elected Parliament—and I must now describe that right hon. Gentleman as a Euro rebel because he is rebelling against the vote of the House last night; the Euro rebel sits at No. 10—and threatens the destruction of his party to stop the social chapter getting through. The consequence will be that the European union will come into effect.
I do not want to offend anyone in my speech, and the point I want to concentrate on is whether the means adopted represents the right way to decide how Europe should develop. There are people who are passionately in favour of the Maastricht treaty and I respect their view. Some think that it represents a defence against socialism. Other colleagues in the Labour party believe that it might advance socialism. Some believe that the result will be a federal, centralised Europe, while others believe that subsidiarity will flow from it.
There are many different interpretations of the social chapter. Some are in favour of it; some are against it—all for different reasons. Some people do not like foreigners. I am a European. I was born a European and I will die a European. I do like foreigners. I could hardly do anything else. My wife is an American and my son has married a woman who is half Jewish and half Bengali. I have two
652
little part Bengali grandchildren, so I find it difficult to take what one might call the "Wolverhampton" view that foreigners start at Dover and that some have already got a bit too close for comfort.
If I were a Frenchman, a Belgian or a German, I would be just as passionately opposed to the Maastricht treaty because it strips all of us, not just the people of this country, of the right to sack the people who make the laws. That is what it is all about. Why should Jacques Delors listen to a word that is said to him by anyone in Europe when he cannot be removed in a general election? That is the key issue.
I am a democrat. I have always seen this issue as a democratic issue, not a nationalist one. Having discussed for two years how Europe should be governed, is it not now clear that, today, we are discussing how Britain should be governed? I want to discuss the Maastricht treaty in terms of the light it has thrown on the way in which the British constitution works before we ratify that treaty.
What is the relationship between the people, Parliament and the prerogative? Those are the three ingredients in our constitution. People will be aware that the Queen in Parliament is sovereign. That is the jargon that we are still expected to accept. Let us examine what role Parliament and Government believe that the people should have. The answer is absolutely none.
At the time of the general election, the Maastricht treaty had not been published in English, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has told me that the social chapter has never been made widely available. There is a view—I am afraid that it is shared by those on my Front Bench, which I greatly regret—that the people have no right whatever to have anything to do with deciding whether we are governed in a new way under the European union.
I have asked many Ministers, including, quite properly, the Foreign Secretary, about the right of the people to decide. "Oh no," he said, "it is for Parliament to decide". Parliament did decide last night against the Government; otherwise we would not be having today's debate. The House knew full well that was at stake. Conservative Members who voted against the Government last night knew exactly what they were doing. But what has happened? When Parliament does decide, the Prime Minister pulls out his final weapon, the prerogative of dissolution. Not only have the people and Parliament been kept out of the decision-making process, but now the Queen has been wheeled out. I intend to say something about the Queen because she is part of our constitution. When people read today's Hansard, they will find that the jocular exchanges between Front-Bench speakers are not as interesting as those parts of the debate that explain to future generations how Britain went into a union.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is surely making the speech that he would have made if the House had come to a resolution last night and the Government had, in some way, decided to invoke the prerogative to overrule that or go against it. That is the thesis which he contests. But, of course, what happened last night was quite different. The House did not come to any conclusion.
Mr. Benn: Of course the House came to a decision. That was why the Cabinet met at 7 o'clock last night, to

653
consider what would happen when the Government were defeated. Earlier this morning I quoted what the Prime Minister said in yesterday's debate. He said:
"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."—
There is no question about what section 7 says—
"Seventy-one separate votes in favour of the Bill should not be frustrated by one parliamentary motion expressing an opinion to the contrary."—[Official Report, 22 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 526.]
The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that if it all went wrong he would simply ratify. After the vote last night, in the traditional statement after a Government defeat, the Prime Minister announced a vote of confidence, which meant, "I will go to the Queen and ask the Queen to destroy the Parliament."
I am genuinely trying to illuminate rather than exacerbate the argument so that people reading Hansard may know how we got into this position. The answer is simple. The Maastricht treaty was signed under the royal prerogative. The Government decided to keep secret the treaty's provisions, which could have been distributed to every household, as they were in Denmark, during the election.
The Whips operate through the royal prerogative of patronage. My hon. Friends who were in the Whips Office know that there are Labour ways of twisting arms. In most Whips Offices it is clear, I understand—it never happened to me—that the prospect of promotion to the Front Bench is inhibited if one is not always in the Government Lobby. That is because of the royal prerogative of patronage. Older Members—again, not me—who are waiting for peerages are made to know that peerages are not so readily available to those who decline to support the Government.
Patronage is a cancer in our democratic society, and everybody knows it. Having got the Bill through the House of Commons, the Government sent it to the House of Lords, and everybody got there by the royal prerogative; one cannot be made a peer without letters patent. Then they brought in peers from foreign hideouts. Did anybody honestly think that a House made up like that would be in favour of elections or in favour of the social chapter? I believe that yesterday the Lords voted in much the same way as they voted on the chimney boys 100 years ago. They were not prepared to give their estate servants better conditions.
Mrs. Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I am developing an argument and I should like to finish it. I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment with such pleasure that she will be suprised.
Another person whose authority comes from the royal prerogative is Lord Rees-Mogg, who has never been elected by anybody. He is a Conservative peer. He has decided to go to the judges. How did they get there? They got there by the royal prerogative. Lord Rees-Mogg rang me up, and. I hope that I am not breaking any confidences when I say that I have doubts about what he told me. He said, "I, Lord Rees-Mogg, am protecting Parliament from the prerogative." I hope that his call was not secret. If it was, I should apologise, but I doubt whether I will.
As I have said, after yesterday's vote the Prime Minister made the massive statement, "We are going to ratify." How do we ratify? We ratify by the royal prerogative. The Prime Minister has said, "If you don't do what we say we
654
will dissolve Parliament by the royal prerogative." I shall complete my next sentence, and then the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) can come in and muddy the waters and I shall do the best I can to clear them up.
This whole story has revealed not only the nature of the European union but the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the way that this country is governed by a Crown, a Prime Minister with Crown powers, a House that depends on Crown powers and on the patronage of those with Crown powers, and the threat of elections. If the hon. Lady understands that, I shall be happy to let her intervene.
Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, all treaties are signed and ratified by the royal prerogative. What does he think makes this treaty so different? The Ponsonby rules mean, and have done for the whole of this century, that treaties are not ratified until they are approved by the House. Many of the 70 votes that we have had on this have already done that, and today's vote will do the same.
If the right hon. Gentleman is so alarmed and concerned about privilege, how come he accepted the great honour of membership of Her Majesty's Privy Council and exercises the additional honour that that gives him in the House of being called in debate before the rest of us?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady might have considered that, as I am the longest serving Opposition Member, I may have caught the Speaker's eye. One of my grandchildren who saw "Jurassic Park" said to me, "What do you call a dinosaur with one eye?—Doyathinkhesaurus". That is the question that every hon. Member must consider when he looks towards the Chair. I asked to be excused from taking the Privy Councillor's oath, but when it was explained to me that if I did not I could not perform the function of Postmaster-General, I capitulated, as we all did.
When I took the oath at the beginning of this Parliament, I said, "As a dedicated republican, I solemnly swear…". My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, "1 solemnly swear that I will bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen when she pays her income tax." There are some concessions that we have to make, and everybody should know that.
Let us examine the final prerogative of dissolution. The Prime Minister was very careful not to say that the Queen had agreed. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has had later news from "Buck Pal" than I have. The Prime Minister said that the Cabinet would decide to seek it. In 1969, when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister and "In Place of Strife" got into some difficulties, he announced that he would be off, like the present Prime Minister, to dissolve Parliament. There was some discussion in the parliamentary Labour party as to whether that was the final word. Douglas Houghton, who was the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, said, "If Harold goes off to the palace, I will follow him in a taxi to say that we have another candidate." That was Jim Callaghan. When the news reached Harold that Douglas Houghton would be on his way, Harold decided not to go.
If the Prime Minister went to resign, what would the Queen say? She would say, "My dear Prime Minister, I read your speech with great interest. You had the greatest popular vote in the whole of history 14 months ago. Isn't there somebody who could take on the responsibilities that you regard as so burdensome? What about that nice man

655
at No. 11? Wouldn't he be the man to take it on?" Many Conservatives, faced with suicide, would be in favour of the man from No. 11, not because they would prefer him, but because their future would depend on his forming a Government.
I shall give another example of dissolution because I have long experience of these matters. In January 1974, the whole shadow Cabinet was invited to lunch with the Iranian ambassador. That was before the Shah fell, so it was quite respectable, or so we were assured. I found myself sitting next to Sir Michael Adeane, the Queen's private secretary. This was during the miners' strike when nobody knew quite what was going to happen. I said to him, "You tell me what's going to happen. If the Prime Minister"—that was the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—"asks for a dissolution, does the Queen have to grant it?" Sir Michael Adeane, who, like all palace officials, was very naive, said, "That is an interesting question. We have been discussing it all morning at the palace." So I went home and began writing my election address because I knew that, if the palace was expecting it, the election was coming.
Therefore, I tell those who are doubtful about the treaty not to assume that there will necessarily be an election if they vote against the Government this afternoon. The Government could make another change. They could say, "We have thought about it again." After all, the Prime Minister is always thinking about things again. They could say that they would ratify with the social chapter or that they would have a referendum. They could decide not to ratify at all because Sir Denys Henderson has told them that that would be a pit of despair into which we would all fall. It does not follow that there will be an election.
The real question is the one to which I have referred when I have addressed the Speaker, twice now: what role does Parliament have in the scenario containing the royal prerogative? The answer is that we are just spectators. We have no role. If we vote against the Government, as we did last night—let us not forget that the Government have an overall majority—tomorrow the pistol will be at the head of those who disagree.
I will tell the House what I think, and I think it with great regret. I think that we are the witnesses of the death of democracy in Britain. We are witnessing that death because the House has lost the will to assert its authority as a legislative chamber. There are many advantages to being a Member of Parliament. One gets on "Newsnight" every now and again and one is treated with great respect at public dinners and so on. However, we do not want to exercise the power that we were elected to exercise. That applies to all parties.
Once we destroy democracy in Britain, we shall pave the way for the federal Europe because, if there is no effective democracy in Britain, Europe will say, "Look at the House of Commons! It didn't seem to care very much, so we'll run Britain." Then we shall be back to the Holy Roman Empire and all that.
I say that with regret because I am a passionate believer in the House. I may be one of the last few people who think that coming here is the greatest honour that one can have. Being in the House is a greater honour than a peerage, and I have proved that. When we get here, we must speak our mind—even if we upset the Front Bench or the Whips—
656
without, I hope, discourtesy to anyone and, when we come to vote, we vote for what we think is right. That is my conviction. I believe that a House of Commons that did not have within it enough people to do that would become the handmaiden of the Prime Minister of the day and would be even more easily rolled over by the Commissioners and the central bankers.
People may think it strange that I have referred several times in the past few days to the 17th century and the Bill of Rights, but it is because the prerogative is now rampant again. We thought that we had dealt with that then, but it has come back because of Maastricht. Every law to which I adhered when I was on the Council of Ministers—I adhered to many of them—was by the royal prerogative. The royal prerogative takes precedence again.
I think that the House is dying. I know that that may seem a strange thing to say, but if we ratify that will be another nail in our coffin because, whatever we decide to do, even if we decided to defy a Government next time round, it would not be effective because the power would have passed to others.
That is my opinion. I put it forward, with respect, to the House. I presume that party loyalty is so strong that the government will get away with it and carry their bloodstained banner into the ratification chamber and will then say that Parliament had agreed with them. Parliament did not agree with them. Last night, without the threat of dissolution, Parliament turned them down and the Government will reverse that decision by improper pressure deriving from an undemocratic constitution—the use of the Queen to get their way over an elected House. That is a terrible tragedy for the Parliament in which we serve.
11.53 am
Mr. Paul Channon: No one would deny that the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was both entertaining and perceptive. I, for one, would not argue with him about dissolution, although he used the precedent of January 1974 when, as he pointed out, there was a dissolution. He went home and wrote his election address. and the Labour party went on to win the election. His theory that the Queen will not grant dissolution might be conceivable, but it is highly improbable. I would not advise my hon. Friends to bank on it, although it gave me some moments of pleasure when I thought of that possibility.
At the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman, quite understandably and rightly, turned it into an attack on the Maastricht treaty as a whole and we all know that he is among the most distinguished of those right hon. Members who are opposed to it. Yes, many people oppose it, but the House knows perfectly well that in reality there is a majority in favour of the treaty. That was clearly shown on both Second and Third Readings of the Bill and on many other occasions during its passage through the House.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is very much a democrat and I should have thought that he would accept the will of the House of Commons—
Mr. Ian Taylor: And the House of Lords.
Mr. Channon: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will pay so much attention to the House of Lords, but that is his prerogative. Of course, he must not

657
say that Lord Rees-Mogg is a Conservative Peer—he sits on the Cross Benches. I used to know Lord Rees-Mogg when he was a Conservative. Indeed, I appointed him chairman of the Arts Council. I thought that he was rather good. That is a royal prerogative—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Chesterfield and I must not make too much fuss about patronage. He has already had to make rather a lame defence of the privileges of a Privy Councillor. He was right about that, but not about much else.
It is clear that both Houses of Parliament are in favour of the Maastricht treaty. There was a question over whether or not Parliament was in favour of the social protocol. We experienced the most extraordinary events last night. The Government won the first vote either on Madam Speaker's casting vote or by a majority of one, depending on which mathematician counts the figures. In any event, the Labour party's amendment, which said that the Government
"should not deposit the Articles of Ratification of the Treaty of European Union … until … it intends to adopt the Protocol on Social Policy"
was defeated. The House then voted down the Government's motion, which merely asked:
"That this House, in compliance with 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."
Everyone knows that section 7 provides that until some resolution has been adopted, the Government cannot ratify the treaty. With respect to the Liberal Democrats and their leader, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who spoke earlier, it was wrong for him to imply that that motion had nothing to do with ratification—it had everything to do with ratification. He knew that if he voted against that motion the Government could not ratify the treaty. The Liberal Democrats keep telling us that they are keen on Maastricht and also on the social chapter. However, the reality of their position last night was that they prevented the Government from ratifying the treaty. The Liberal Democrats know that and they knew it last night. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it was disingenuous of him to pretend otherwise.
Mr. Alton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the Liberal Democrats have always supported the concept of the Maastricht treaty and that only the problem of linkage has prevented us from voting in the Lobby with him. By linking yesterday's vote to the social chapter—which the hon. Gentleman knows we have consistently supported—and by linking today's vote to the question of confidence, makes it untenable and impossible for Liberal Democrats to vote with the right hon. Gentleman. If there were a motion before the House today merely dealing with the issue of ratification, he knows that my party would be voting with his.
Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not the 'exact position, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out during an intervention. The question whether we should adopt the social protocol was disposed of when the Labour amendment was defeated. The House was then asked to decide, one way or another, on the simple motion:
"That this House…notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy."
658
The Liberal Democrats voted against that, as they are entitled to do. It was their decision. However, they are not entitled to say that they are going all out to ratify the Maastricht treaty, because when they had the opportunity to achieve that major, objective last night, for narrow party reasons they chose to vote down the Government's motion.
The House faces two issues this morning. The first relates to the merits of the case for the social chapter and the second to the political realities facing the House and, in particular, the Conservative party. I sometimes wish that our old friend Lord Archer were back in this House. He would find it difficult to write a thriller more amazing than the events of the last few months. Who could have imagined that we would have seen last night those Euro-sceptics who are most against ratification of the treaty join, in a way, the Labour party, in voting for an amendment to incorporate the social protocol that nearly all of them are against? I must be careful, because that is not true of them all. It is only fair to point out that one or two hon. Friends who are distinguished members of the group that opposes ratification do not think that the social chapter matters very much. I believe that I am right in saying that most of them are very much against the adoption of the social protocol. I therefore find it extraordinary that they voted in the way that they did.
As to the merits of the case, I choose to accept what was said yesterday by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and in particular in the winding-up speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who demonstrated exactly what the social chapter would entail for the people of this country. On the merits of the case, we are on strong ground.
But let us assume for a moment that the social chapter does not matter very much. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield and some of my hon. Friends—including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—said that the social chapter does not matter too much and would not make much difference. If the Government's motion is passed this afternoon, the Government will survive and presumably they will ratify the treaty without the social chapter.
The consequences if the House does -not support the Government this afternoon were best summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) on television last night. He said that the dilemma that he faced was either Maastricht being ratified by a Conservative Government without the social chapter, or a general election that, in his view—and I hope that he is wrong—would bring a Conservative defeat and the return of a Labour Government who would ratify the treaty anyway, with the social chapter. Where is the merit in that for those of my hon. Friends who are against both ratification and the social chapter? That would be the worst conceivable result.
My own view is that the Maastricht treaty is not very exciting. I am not mad keen on what is proposed, but it is not as bad as all that. I take the same view of the treaty as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East takes on the social chapter. So although the treaty is not as bad as all that, it is not something to make us throw our hats over the moon with pleasure.
I remember that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brought the treaty back to the House, it was thought on these Benches that he had achieved a great triumph. I have been known to tease my hon. Friend the

659
Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) by pointing out that on that occasion, so impressed was he by my right hon. Friend's arguments that he supported the Government. He may since have regretted doing so, because he has taken quite a different line ever since.
I accept, of course, that we have moved on from there. I admire my hon. Friends' campaign against the Bill. They are a small group, but they have fought an historic campaign which will go down in the history books. It was a remarkable way of proceeding. I am not sure that if I had been one of their number, I would have approved of voting against procedural motions and generally messing up Government business, but who knows? I do not criticise my hon. Friends for that. There is no doubt that they exposed the issues in a fashion for which the House should in some ways be grateful.
Now we come down to the basics. On what course do we want to set the country after this afternoon? That is in the hands of some of my hon. Friends in the Chamber this morning, and in the hands of others who are outside now but who I am sure will be present later.
Dr. Robert Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the campaign run by the Tory rebels was cynical? They voted for something in which none of them believes.
Mr. Channon: I do not entirely agree. To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, he has always said the social chapter does not matter. He might even be mildly in favour of it, but I think I am right in saying that he is not strongly opposed to it. That is true of a number of my hon. Friends, but my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) is probably right to say that the majority are against it.
Mr. Cash: I think that some of my hon. Friends misunderstood the motion, which was not about the social chapter but about the protocol on social policy. I regret to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) did not know the difference between the two.
Mr. Channon: I hope and believe that I know the difference. I have the motion in front of me. However, I do not want to bandy words with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman is an expert from the Whips Office, I give way to him.
Mr. Frank Cook: I must tell the House that I am not an expert—to be an "ex" is to be a has-been and to be a "spurt" is to be a drip under pressure. I admit to neither of those propensities. Far be it from me to try to staunch the spiritual haemorrhage that is taking place in internecine fashion among the Conservatives but, if it is so treacherous for a Tory to vote for an amendment for motives other than those apparent from the Order Paper, is it not just as treacherous for the Government to seek the support of a party in exchange for an undeclared advantage that it might get at some future date?
Mr. Channon: I certainly have not used the word "treacherous". The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact
660
that the Ulster Unionists voted with us last night. It is up to them to say why they did so. I think that, if I were an Ulster Unionist, I should be appalled by the idea of the proposals by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) coming into effect. I should be inclined to vote with any party that was likely to stop it happening. That strikes me as nothing more than common sense. The Ulster Unionists must speak for themselves, but it seems a reasonable and understandable point of view.
I do not want to detain the House too long. We have come back to basics. If the motion is not carried today, and in spite of what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, it is highly probable—if not virtually certain—that Parliament will be dissolved. Do my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that that is desirable at the moment? On what course do we want to set the country?
The Conservatives won an extraordinarily large victory last year although it was not rewarded by as many seats as we might have expected. [Interruption.] The economy is beginning to improve. Prospects are beginning—
Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Opposition from a sedentary position repeatedly to accuse my right hon. Friend of lying?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I did not hear any such thing, but if the hon. Member involved said it, I am sure that he will want to withdraw it.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman was a liar; I said that the Government told lies during the election.
Mr. Channon: I do not want to fight the last election again. I do not think that I told a single lie during the campaign. I see no point in fighting the battles of the last election again. Indeed, I hope that we shall not have to fight those of the next election too soon.
As the economy improves, and as people realise that conditions in this country are getting better, in stark contrast to those in most of the rest of the European Community—[Interruption.] Rightly or wrongly, I happen to believe that the economy is improving. I believe that the figures bear me out. We shall discover who is right in a few months' time.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend not think that Britain has perhaps benefited hugely from the immediate impact of our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism whereas other countries in Europe are still suffering in terms of jobs and expenditure?
Mr. Channon: I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the ERM. He mentions it often to me in private, and I am glad that he has mentioned it in public. Perhaps unusually, I have always been against the ERM. I was against it when I was a member of the Government and I am delighted that we came out. I hope that we shall not rejoin, and certainly not for a considerable time.
This Government's fate now rests in the hands of some of my hon. Friends. I put it to them that in the long-term interests of the country it would be a disaster if they were to set us on the course of a general election, whose outcome would be uncertain, at a time when conditions are improving and when, in a few years' time, we shall be able to show the people of this country the prosperity that

661
we have created. By then, our reforms will have had a chance to work. The battle of Maastricht is, I believe, now over—
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Channon: No, I shall not give way as I am corning to the end of my speech.
The battle of Maastricht is now over. I hope that my hon. Friends will consider carefully the course of action that they intend to take this afternoon. I believe that the national interest requires there to be a Conservative Government for the next few years in order that we can put straight some of the many difficulties that face this country.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The assisted area status map has now been published and is available in the Vote Office. May we have a statement from the Government in which the excellent news for Dover and Deal, that they have been granted assisted area status, can be—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That has nothing whatsover to do with the debate. No doubt the Minister will have heard what has been said.
12.10 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall begin by using what I believe is a Yorkshire phrase —that there is nowt queerer than folk. I suspect that many people outside Parliament say that there is nowt queerer than the parliamentary procedure that we observe here.
It seems to me that the pantomime season has started early. People outside the House of Commons are rapidly losing confidence and faith not only in a faded Prime Minister but in Parliament and a failed Government. This system is seen by the people outside as farcical. We are far too removed from the reality of everyday life for the people whom we are supposed to represent. They have seen unholy alliances, backwards and forwards, through this Chamber. We see people theoretically voting in one direction when, in fact, they are voting in a different direction. The whole system is a shambles and is bringing politics and politicians into disrepute.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made an interesting speech on the constitution. I know that he will wish to listen to the few remarks that I want to make on constitutional matters. Twice this week, the right hon. Gentleman invoked the Bill of Rights, article 1 and article 9. The Bill of Rights is not applicable to the Scottish people or to the Scottish nation. We had our own Claim of Right in 1688, which spelt out clearly the sovereignty of the Scottish people. It is a tradition in our constitutional law, which stretches back many centuries before that. The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320 contains a clear definition of the sovereignty of the people.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady knows that I am only half English. My mother is a Scot. I share entirely the importance that she attaches to the Declaration of Arbroath and the Claim of Right. The hon. Lady will also know that the sovereignty of the people was asserted during the English Revolution and that it was reversed only in 1688. I should regret having to go back to the Bill of Rights. I have never believed that democracy began in Britain when William and Mary arrived. It was a coup
662
d'état by a corrupt Establishment that wanted to get rid of the Catholics. The hon. Lady will therefore excuse me if, as we live in medieval times, I turn to medieval safeguards—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a long intervention.
Mrs. Ewing: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was a very interesting intervention, in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman and I both claim that the important aspect of constitutional law must be the sovereignty of the people themselves. It is not parliamentary sovereignty. It is the right of the people themselves to declare where they wish to go in terms of Europe and in terms of the development of any political institution.
We do not even need to go as far back as the Declaration of Arbroath. All we need to do is to consider points made by previous Members of Parliament.
"The House of Commons allows itself to be led but does not like to be driven and is apt to turn on those who attempt to drive it."
That was said by the third Viscount Palmerston in a letter to William Gladstone in 1861, indicating that this House of Commons must assert itself if its Members are to represent the views of the people who send them to this Chamber. Public opinion sets bounds on every Government and is the real sovereign in every free Government and every free country.
Those are the issues which are important in this debate, and it is from that viewpoint that my party and my colleagues approach today's decision. We will, of course, vote against the Govenrment, because we have no confidence in them, but not solely because of their mishandling of the issue of Europe, which is a very important issue. I believe in the European ideal. I want to see Europe developed, but I do not believe that the way in which the Government have handled the European debate has enhanced the reputation of themselves or of Europe among our people.
We believe that there should have been a referendum. The Government could have prevented this shambolic mess if they had based their attitude on the right of people to speak on the issue. A referendum could have been held in which people were asked, "Do you want Maastricht, with or without the social chapter?" The people could have decided that. We tabled an amendment to that effect, but, unfortunately, collusion between the two Front Benches meant that the idea of a referendum was not carried.
We saw the spectacle last week of the backwoodsmen and backwoodswomen coming in to deny our people the right to speak on Maastricht and the social chapter. In any democracy, the will of the people is paramount, not the survival of politicians, many of whom reached their expiry date long ago. This is not about saving the skins of politicians but about the will of the people.
I believe that the Government were wrong constantly to postpone a decision on the social chapter. They prolonged the agony for people and for everyone in the country. Maastricht and Europe are not perfect, but we want to enhance and improve them. We shall do so only if people have a right to make their decision about how they want such developments to go ahead.
Many people would welcome the opportunity of a referendum on Europe, which might improve the standard of debate, because they would then address the issues of the Maastricht treaty and the European Community,

663
whether it be an enlarged Community or a Community as exists at the moment. They would address the issues that are likely to affect not only their lives and our children's lives but those of many generations hence. The development of Europe is very important and I believe that we should have an enhanced debate.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Lady and I have not always seen eye to eye on referendums, but does she accept that referendums often turn out to be about what they do not purport to be about, and that many other issues are introduced into them? Would not a referendum in Scotland be about a lot of other things?
Mrs. Ewing: Perhaps the difficulty is that there is no proviso within the constitution for regular referendums. In other countries where referendums are held on specific subjects, people address the issues and it was partly our fault that referendums in, for example, the 1970s became mixed up with other issues. Had the Labour Government not been as unpopular as they were in 1979, not only would the people of Scotland have said yes, as they did to the referendum, but they might have overcome the hurdle of the 40 per cent. rule—that most invidious rule which was imposed to try to ensure that the people of Scotland did not have a Scottish Parliament. All of us who are interested in Europe would wish to conduct a referendum on the subject, because we would have an enhanced, enlightened debate throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom which would allow people to cast their votes appropriately.
I understand that the Cabinet has given the Prime Minister full approval to depart to the palace should either vote go against him this afternoon. The prospect of a general election does not frighten the Scottish national party or the Welsh national party. We should be delighted to go to the country. I believe that people wish to see a change, not only of Government, but of the system of government. In Scotland, we have an opportunity not to continue with the farce, but to build a better system of government by holding out the prospect of self-determination for the people of Scotland, allowing them to participate as equals in the European Community.
12.20 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on a number of issues. We are all conscious that we are here because of the people, and that the Chamber's authority derives from the people. Therefore, it is beholden on Governments and Opposition to be mindful that, when they come together on a great policy, they should not be satisfied with the tests that they set to that great policy, but should ensure that they have canvassed the views of the nation on it. The corruption in the apple that has diminished. Parliament is that, for too many years, the Government and the Opposition have been satisfied to seek merely acquiescence, not consent.
The old, old principles brought the House together and formed its authority. Those principles have been diminished by our casualness. In the great debate over Maastricht, the single most powerful argument raised across the country was that it was boring. By trying to stuff our ears with the idea that something so fundamental to
664
the concept of democracy—the very essence of democracy—was boring, we perhaps lost the central intent behind our reason for being here.
The Opposition Front-Bench team marched to support the Government on their policy. That policy was not debated in an election, whereby the people of this country could have expressed their view on the transference of their powers—the base of the authority through which we are here—to unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable Ministers in the European Council of Ministers. It was a profound and absolute matter, but we dismissed it as boring. The great commentators took that line. The House took that line, my colleagues busied themselves outside and took that line. However, as a result of that line being taken, today we see a Government before us who are shaking because there may be an election and they have lost the confidence of the House. There is no threat in that. If we believe in the people, we must believe in their judgment. The Prime Minister is right to hold out to the nation the prospect of being able to judge on those issues.
We cannot continue as we have been acting—that applies to all parties. We have refreshment only from the authority of the people, but we deny that because we believe that we can take away that authority and give it into the hands of others who are not accountable to the people. That is why the House is in the greatest danger apparently over the technicalities of a social protocol which touch on a piece of social legislation. For 200 years, the business of the House has been to improve and correct social legislation. Any Government who have the confidence of the people may introduce measures to achieve that end. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) reminded us of some of the ways in which the House has moved to accomplish those ends.
Can a motion dealing with legislation that effects the well-being of our people bring the Government to their knees so that they have to table a confidence motion? Of course not—the motion is not, in essence, about that. The debate and the sustenance of the so-called rebellion among Conservative Members has come about—as Labour Members know—because the people of this country are deeply uncertain and uneasy about something that they do not understand and which politicians - have not been prepared to explain. It lies in our hands to explain it, and we can do so simply.
It is often been said in the House, "My goodness, the issues affecting a general election are of themselves so complex." They touch on the exchange rate mechanism, on monetary policy and on myriad aspects of public life. Yet the electorate can return an answer, and so it can with Maastricht. If we ask the people, we have to explain to them why it is so important to expunge some of the very reasons for the existence of this House—not our vanity, but their powers to reject or to endorse the great issues of our day, and the shape of the social and political fabric of this nation. The Government eschewed it. The Opposition eschewed it. In the end, this House eschewed it.
I was in the House of Lords when the question was put to an undemocratic and unaccountable Chamber, "Should we have a referendum?" If I had turned off the electricity for three minutes, three quarters of the Lords would not be here today. On that check and balance within our constitution rested our freedom and our right.
The Government still have a chance. They should honour those who brought them to office. Those who have risen through the Whips Office, those who have been the

665
servants of central office and those who have come to control a great and dignified party are the servants of that party. They are not at the moment well fitted for that when they discharge their responsibilities in this manner. That is true across the House. We have become so puffed up with the importance of this Chamber in relation to the people outside. We will change our ways and we will master our approach to the electorate because we are the servants of the electorate.
The motion, as I have said, is not about social policy. Behind it is the survival of a Government. More importantly, no one will ever reconcile me to the vote for Maastricht without the request that the people consent to the transference of their powers. I shall vote for the Government. I shall do so for the reasons that I have adduced, and the House well understands those reasons. However, the House must know that people like me will attest to this: this Government will be a fine Government. They will be a Government one day who are worthy of this party and worthy of this country.
12.26 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) speaks, the House has come to listen, not least when he speaks with such passion. When he says that we cannot go on as a House of Commons as we have been doing, many agree.
As many of my colleagues wish to have their say, I shall restrict myself to one question, albeit a long and rather convoluted question, which I hope will be addressed when the Minister winds up. It is this. Is it not important that we are on the inside track? Ministers have constantly lectured us about the importance of being in on the decision-making and in the inside track or, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said in a memorable speech, "in the room." I am baffled about why, having been lectured endlessly over many hours about the importance of being inside Europe, in the decision-making and in the room, we shall be asked to leave the room when social policy is discussed. I have not heard any answer given by any Minister that addresses the question why that principle should not apply to the social chapter.
I tell the Minister that I am a passionate and unreconstructed pro-European. The Opposition Whips were very sweet about that. The Opposition Whips are very charming people of great civilisation, humanity and delicacy. However, they were not wholly enchanted when, quite frequently, I—rightly or wrongly—voted in the Government Lobby during the passage of Maastricht. Along with the Labour party conference and various other people, I want the Maastricht Bill. So I ask the House not to question my impeccable European credentials. But one inevitably asks why on earth we cannot have the same approach to the social chapter.
Some of us believe that the social chapter is an integral part of that to which we have signed up. People have been asked, "Are you prepared to put Maastricht at risk?" Yes, I am prepared—and other impeccable Europeans like my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) are prepared—to put Maastricht at risk if we cannot get what we regard as an integral part of the treaty. The social chapter is extremely important to us. It really is.
The Foreign Office has documents from a man called Robin Das, who is based in Moehlin and has written
666
giving numerous cuttings of advertisements in the Swiss and French press, which say, "Come to Britain and you will find cheaper labour." That is a very humiliating advertisement for our country. I do not like being humiliated in that way. The Foreign Office has copies of those advertisements, but there has been no proper reply about what we should say when faced with such humiliation. What is the Government's thinking on this matter? Is it that we shall repeat time and again the advantage that Cambuslang secured? I am very much in favour of employment in Cambuslang, as my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) know, but the circumstances of the factory in question moving from Dijon to Cambuslang cannot be repeated very happily if we are to be on the inside track of decision making in the Community.
What is the Government's policy? What will happen when we are asked to leave the room on the social chapter? And what do they think that that will do for our influence inside the Community? The truth is that if, over the months and years, we do not agree to the social chapter, many of the criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and other honourable critics of the Community will be proved to be very near the bone. Either we are in the Community fully and influential or we are out of it. That is what those on the Government Front Bench have repeatedly said.
Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will remember that, 20 years ago when the pro-Europeans were campaigning vigorously for us to stay in Europe, one of the arguments that they used most often to encourage people to vote for Europe is that it would improve social conditions. At the time, I was working at Rolls-Royce in Hillington. It was argued that staying in Europe would mean better holidays, better pay and conditions and so on. If the Government get their way, many of the folk who voted to stay in Europe at that time will have been conned.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. Our arguments, at endless meetings, up and down the country, in favour of membership of the Community may turn out to have been fraudulent if we do not secure the social chapter. My hon. Friend asks a legitimate question. People will say, "You persuaded us on the basis of a social chapter and better working conditions and on the basis of employment. If that is to be taken away, how do the arguments with which you persuaded us hold water?" What is an embarrassed pro-European supposed to say to those whom one has persuaded to support one's position on Europe when one cannot produce the goods—the social chapter? I hope that that question will be addressed in the Minister's reply.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that there was considerable speculation that a statement was to be made in the House at I I am on the assisted areas. That has—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with a similar point of order.
Mr. Madden: The point that I wish to make is that the matter has now been dealt with by means of a parliamentary written answer. Many areas, including my own, have lost assisted area status. That will make our efforts to attract jobs and to rebuild our economies very

667
much more difficult. Have you had any request from the Government for a statement to be made on Monday so that hon. Members can ask the Minister why those grave decisions have been taken, as they will make it much harder for us to rebuild the local communities in cities like mine?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the present time, there has been no such request from the Government.
12.35 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I shall support the Government in the Lobby this afternoon as I have supported them on all the 74 votes that we have had so far on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and associated legislation. I am proud to be able to do that.
If I understood my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary correctly when I heard him on Radio 4 this morning, the Maastricht treaty will be ratified. The Act of Parliament that enables that to happen has received Royal Assent. I hope that we will today ensure that we obtain the Government's motion on the social chapter and the social protocol which will complete that process.
We face two questions. The first is whether that process will be completed with or without the social chapter. I must say to the House, and I have said this elsewhere and on radio and on television, that I do not share quite the frantic panic about the social chapter in all its ramifications that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel.
If I may indulge in a little wishful thinking, I wish that we had felt able to say that the part of the original social chapter that refers to health and safety legislation was not only welcome in this country, but was largely already enacted in this country. We have a proud and substantial record of putting health and safety legislation on to the statute book and of ensuring that it is adhered to and kept, in the interests of all our constituents. We should be proud of that record and we should have been able to say that we were content in respect of that part of the social chapter.
I want to put on the record today a point that I have made on numerous occasions to Ministers. I would dearly like to see better rights for part-time workers, most of whom are women. I would particularly like to see it made compulsory, at some stage in this country, that women who work in part-time jobs should have pension rights and that their employers should contribute towards those pensions.
I fully accept that that cannot be achieved overnight and that it might have to be phased in. However, the net result of the present system is that millions of part-time workers in this country, including women who work part time for many years, may reach the end of their working lives after 20, 30 or 40 years working part time and not be entitled to a pension. When they retire, they may well find that their entitlement to a state pension, based on their husband's contributions, does not fulfil their expectations. Indeed, if they are divorced, separated or abandoned women, they will receive no pension whatsoever. They are then a charge on the state and the social security system. That is costing this country a great deal of money.
Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Britain has the best health and safety and occupational pensions records in Europe? That can be extended to women without the social chapter. We also have the best social policies in Europe for creating jobs. Therefore, we do not need the social chapter.
Mrs. Currie: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I will continue to argue that women should have pensions, that they should pay into pensions and that we should abandon the married women's reduced national insurance contributions. If we women want equality, we will jolly well have to pay for it. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends can take that point on board at some stage. We should have made that response to at least part of the proposals on the social chapter.
The point on which we in this country rightly dig in our heels is one of the most fundamental—how to encourage or discourage employment. It is a question not just for this country but for the whole of Europe. Indeed, it is a question for the whole of western society. We so long to give social benefits to the people who return us to Parliament, and we genuinely so long to share with them—most of us—the benefits of having a wealthy, prosperous and secure society that we can sometimes be blinded to the fact that we have to compete with the rest of the world, which does not always take on board the social costs which some hon. Members regard as essential.
Mr. Oppenheim: If my hon. Friend believes in equality between men and women, does she think that women should draw their pensions at 65, as men do?
Mrs. Currie: Yes, women should draw their pensions at 65, as men do. However, I do not think that we should introduce that overnight, because that would be very unfair indeed on people who are expecting to retire shortly.
Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Currie: No, I will not give way again on this matter. We will have many opportunities to debate the rights of women in this country, and I invite the active support of male hon. Members when we. do so.
The part that we should be concerned about and the part that our right hon. and hon. Friends fought hard about at Maastricht, and the part that our colleagues in the Community should have set on one side—which should be a matter of subsidiarity and a matter for each country to decide for itself what it can afford and what it cannot afford—is the relationship between trade unions, Government and management and to what extent collective bargaining should be written into the law of the land.
We have thought our way through that matter in this country. I am not in the least surprised that the views expressed by UNICE, the European employers' organisations, have been somewhat equivocal and contradictory. Part of the social chapter would write into law that if UNICE and the European Trades Union Congress came to an agreement, the Commission and the Council of Ministers would have to consider that agreement, and it would be writ large on the face of 340 million people throughout the Community.
UNICE represents a lot of people, but it does not represent most employers and most employees in the European Community. It certainly does not represent

669
most of them or even many of them in my constituency. The European TUC represents barely 20 per cent. of the work force. What about the other 80 per cent? When I hear Opposition Members talking about working people, I wonder which working people they are talking about. They are talking about the National Association of Local Government Officers, the National Union of Public Employees and the Transport and General Workers' Union. They are not talking about the ordinary working people in my constituency who choose not to belong to trade unions, and they are not talking about the ordinary working people in my constituency who do not have jobs, who wish to have jobs and who want to keep trade union collective bargaining out of interfering with any possibility of their obtaining jobs.
Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend's point is interesting and valid. Once again, the Labour party is sidling up to union barons, preparing to hand over power to them, and concentrating on the small number of powerful trade unions who do not represent anybody. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must be careful when we assert the prospect of making agreements which can be legally binding, because exactly the same provision appears in section 3B of the Single European Act? It includes a provision for making legally binding agreements between unions and employers if they so wish without the official institutions being involved.
Mrs. Currie: I think that I understand my hon. Friend's point that if a union and a company make an agreement it should be possible for that agreement to be enforced. Most of us would regard it as axiomatic that, if two groups make an agreement, in normal circumstances it is not for the House to interfere with the enforcement of it. I take that point on board. My hon. Friend knows that I am extremely wary of any suggestion that negotiations between national and international bodies which are deeply unrepresentative of the bulk of the people of this community should be enforced on the rest of the community. It seems a recipe for disaster.
Mr. Derek Enright rose—
Mr. Currie: No.
Mr. Enright: What part of the social protocol says that?
Mrs. Currie: I speak from my experience of such things, for more than 10 years, in my constituency of South Derbyshire.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. lady is misleading the House.
Mrs. Currie: Allan, will you shut up and listen for a minute?
Mr. Rogers rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen and finding it very difficult to do so.
Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Currie: No. I will not give way.
Mr. Rogers: But the hon. Lady referred to me.
Mrs. Currie: I will give way in a moment.
I speak from the vantage point of having represented my South Derbyshire constituency for 10 years. I have
670
always taken the view that if we push up the cost of employing people we should not be surprised if we find it more difficult to employ them. We would then have to explain to our constituents why unemployment is high and rising.
We should accept and recognise the view of many international businesses that they wish to employ people at the highest possible levels of training and investment. We have one of the greatest companies in the world in my constituency, Toyota, and I am very proud that we have it. Many other people in my constituency, however, do not work for Toyota and are never likely to. They are not well qualified and will never have the opportunity to rise to that level. Nevertheless, their employment also matters. What also matters to the companies who wish to take them on is whether they can do so on the basis of the costs that they can afford.
The unemployment rate in my constituency is only 6·6 per cent. and falling. It is not only Toyota that is responsible for that; it is the wise and sensible application of policies of employment throughout the constituency by businesses of every kind, from businesses that employ 1,000 people to businesses that employ two people, to those that employ full-time workers, or self-employed people, and those that employ part-time workers. I want to see those workers as well protected as they possibly can be, but first of all I want to see them employed. That is what the social chapter will destroy.
Mr. Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Can she tell me why the Government abolished the wage councils, which effectively withdrew protection from 2·5 million part-time, female workers? I did not hear the hon. Lady raise her voice at that time to fight for women in part-time work.
Mrs. Currie: As I said to my constituents at the time, and I will continue to do so, I believe the greatest social benefit is having a job.
It is for individuals to decide. In my constituency, we have a large number of small businesses; many of them are brand new. Between 1987 and 1992, we have had 11,000 new businesses registered for VAT. Most of those businesses have survived. Most are small businesses, run by ordinary men and women. It is not for the Government to tell them what they should pay their workers.
Dr. John Reid rose—
Miss Joan Lestor rose—
Mrs. Currie: I am flattered, but the answer is no. Sit down. I am anxious not to detain the House much longer because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
I said at the beginning of my speech that the treaty will be ratified and that there are only two questions to be decided today. One is whether it will be ratified with or without the social chapter, and I have made my views clear about that. The motion that we have to debate relates to section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which says that a motion on the social chapter has to be put down by a Minister of the Government.
The other question is: which Government will put down the motion? If this motion is defeated, there will be a general election. Whatever my Derbyshire colleague, the right hon. scion of an aristocratic and noble family, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) may say, there will be a general election.

671
The only remaining question is which Government will put down the motion to ensure ratification. That matter is entirely in the hands of the House. I shall be proud to go into the Lobby with my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I hope that the motion gets the very big positive majority that it deserves.
12.49 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: This is a parliamentary occasion, and in debates on such occasions we move quickly from the sublime to the ridiculous. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made sublime speeches. We then heard the ridiculous speech by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). She made one significant point when she praised the Government's social record and said that it was in line with the social chapter. We have consistently said that there is nothing in the social chapter that is not already on the statute book.
We have spoken about the protection of workers, their rights in the workplace, information and modest proposals to extend social provision. Those are all part of the social dimension about which we heard a great deal yesterday from the Government. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South aspires to the European Parliament. When she is exposed to the variety of ideas in Europe, she will change her views about workers.
Europe has no future without a social dimension. People cannot be turned into robots. A social dimension must be applied to those who invest their lives in gainful employment. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) understands that, and that is evident from his employee share option schemes. The only people who do not understand that are the Government. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) explained the reason for that when he spoke about squeezing lemons, which were squeezed from the day the Maastricht treaty was signed.
When the Prime Minister opted out, as he thought, of the social chapter, and when he sought to opt out of the development of a European currency, he was trying to squeeze Tory lemons—those who were anti-European and did not believe in the futher developments of Europe. Then the Prime Minister tried to assuage them. At that time, the Government had a majority of 100 and the Prime Minister latched on to the social chapter. He said, "I will opt out of the social chapter and offer that to the Tory lemons and they will come into line." They did not come into line then, they did not do so last night, and they have not done so today.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, last night's vote was the clear view of the House that without the social chapter there should not be a Maastricht. treaty. Today's motion is linked to last night's vote. That is a corrupt misuse of parliamentary procedures, and it is the sort of corruption about which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills spoke.
In parliamentary terms, it would have been appropriate for the Government to accept last night's vote and ask for a straight vote of confidence today and not one linked to the social chapter. That corruption worries the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and it worries the rest of
672
us, because from the time that the Maastricht treaty was signed we have been living from one game, set and match sound bite to another.
The Government have shown a clear lack of direction in their handling of the treaty. The first question was whether the royal prerogative should have been used, because the treaty could have been signed and ratified under that prerogative. The Government forgot about the royal prerogative until they ran into difficulties. The Government then brought in the Attorney-General, who said that the treaty could be ratified under the royal prerogative and that the Bill did not matter. When we came to section 7, the Foreign Secretary said that it did not matter, and it could be left.
Then the matter got to the courts and the Government gave in again and said that the High Court could go ahead with the judicial review. They did not even stand up for the privileges of the House before a court of law, never mind standing up in the House on what the position should have been and over the honesty of their position. The Prime Minister knows full well, as he knew when he signed the Maastrict treaty, that the social chapter is no more than a simple extension of the social dimension.
We have heard about Edouard Balladur, who is coming on Monday—my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made great play of that. However, there is no way that a French right-wing Government will walk away from the social chapter, because they understand the need for the social dimension, and they understand that that dimension is significant for the future of Europe.
The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) spoke of small businesses. Time and again, we are told that regulations come from Brussels. However, most of them are the result of 13 years of Tory government. Through their laws, they have introduced masses of regulations. Not long ago, I was at a dinner with the President of the Board of Trade, who said that of the 7,000 regulations on the books, half had been cut immediately because they were duplicates. But the Government had introduced them in the first place.
My hon. Friends tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, when she was speaking of how Toyota came to her constituency. She did not mention the fact that that was brought about by Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council. Brussels is blamed for regulations when they actually come from the Government.
Mrs. Currie: It might help the hon. Gentleman to know that, when Toyota was having a good look at a number of sites, on of the questions that was put to me in great puzzlement by one of its advisers was, "How come, of all the sites that we are looking at, only one has a Conservative Member of Parliament?" My answer was, "Because my constituents have their heads screwed on."
Mr. Bell: The hon. Lady will take her flippancy to the European Parliament, and I hope that it enjoys it more than we do. Nissan came to Wearside, which is represented entirely by Labour Members of Parliament, and I presume that the same point could be made of Nissan as she has made of Toyota.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Senior managers of multinationals that have invested in my constituency have told me over and over again that they are perfectly willing to pay reasonable wages and offer

673
decent terms and conditions of employment in return for highly skilled labour. IBM has a plant in my constituency which has survived much better than IBM plants elsewhere because of the fine skills of its work force. For those inward investors, the social chapter presents no problems because they are willing to offer decent terms and conditions of employment.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is right.
What does an employer want? We have heard a great deal about the CBI and about ICI. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, made one point clear yesterday. ICI is an international company. When Sir John Harvey-Jones took the decision some years ago to expand into Europe, he did not feel that the European obligations for a social dimension were too great. He said, "This is the future market and we're getting into it." We saw the prospects of ICI investing here diminishing as a result.
Every employer wants his work force to have the best possible conditions, for the simple reason that if conditions are good and the workplace is homogenous, they will be better workers and will have better productivity rates.
The Government talk about productivity and of how the social chapter will attack Britain's productivity. However, we know from figures from the Department of Trade and Industry that in the OECD league of productivity, which covers the European states, we are 18th out of 24. Our productivity without the social chapter is well behind that of Germany and France. There are criticisms of Europe and the 17 million unemployed, but we must realise that as we do not even have the social chapter in Europe it cannot be creating such massive unemployment.
We all know the real reason for that high unemployment—and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) knows it better than most: it is the policy of the Bundesbank. However, when it suits the Government, they move the blame from the Bundesbank to the social chapter.
Dr. Reid: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I only wish that every employer was committed to better conditions for his employees. My experience is that that is not always the case.
Can my hon. Friend clarify a point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) about part-time female workers who do not have the luxury of being employed by Nissan or Toyota? As I understood the hon. Lady's argument—which was not entirely clear to me—the first half was an absolute commitment to increasing the right of part-time female workers to better pensions, including increased employers' contributions. The second half was an absolute commitment to push down all labour costs. How can those two aims be reconciled?
Mr. Bell: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is not a lawyer, but she will understand the term "mutually exclusive". When she relates her speech to what the Government are saying, she will realise that they are mutually exclusive and she may well find herself looking even more towards a seat in the European Parliament.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman rightly speaks about regulation. Of course, the Government are having to deregulate to reduce the
674
number of unnecessary regulations that impact on industry's competitiveness. The acid test is whether regulations impact upon both competitiveness and cost. The cost figures produced by Eurostat for 1990—the latest available—show that indirect costs in the United Kingdom, excluding direct pay, are, as a proportion of labour costs, the second lowest in the Community. They are about 12·7 per cent., next to Denmark's 2·9 per cent.—but that country has other impediments on wages. The figures for France and Italy are as high as 31 per cent. and 29 per cent. respectively, which is one reason why their economies are so sclerotic and uncompetitive.
Mr. Bell: Those economies are not as uncompetitive as our economy. The OECD table published by the DTI's competitiveness unit shows that. The figures are an embarrassment to the Government. However, I shall leave the matter there as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bell: No. I want to end my speech as quickly as possible.
It was said of the great Italian statesman Mr. Cavour that he was a reed of iron. The Prime Minister is certainly a reed, but we do not see any iron. Instead, we see a Prime Minister who, for the first time in 14 years of Conservative government, has no steady line. The great difficulty that he has with Europe is that on the one hand he wants to be a free trader and he believes that Europe should be a free trade area, but on the other he believes in the Foreign Office line that we should be part of the European Community. He has never been able to resolve that difficulty in his own mind. He cannot decide whether he wants to be in the free trade business or genuinely wants Europe to develop in a cohesive way. Until he gets rid of that dichotomy in his thinking, he will never be at peace with himself.
I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that Europe, as an issue for the Conservative party, will not go away. Maastricht is not the end; it may only be the beginning. As we saw last night, the Prime Minister has lost his majority.
I quote Shakespeare:
"If it were done when 'tis done, then `twere well It were done quickly".
It is time that the Prime Minister took the Maastricht question and his handling of the economy to the British people, one year after the event. Those who believe in our democracy and that Parliament and our people are sovereign will vote for that conclusion today. If they do not, we will have three to four years of a lingering, running down and indecisive Tory Government looking for a change of leadership.
The question was asked why the Prime Minister would seek a dissolution. He was clever to bring his whole Cabinet together after last night's vote, to get their agreement, so that if the Queen were to ask, "Who else could form a Government?" the right hon. Gentleman could reply, "None of us. They all agree with me. They are all behind me."
Dr. Godman: They are all in it together.
Mr. Bell: Yes, they are. There is no little bus from the Chief Whip, as there was in the time of a Labour Government, because the Chief Whip is in the same pot as the Prime Minister.
Courage and conviction must be shown in the House this afternoon by Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), whom I am glad to see in his place, who have gone down a particular road according to their principles and consciences so that this country may have a fresh, clean start. That is what the British public want.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Assisted Areas Order 1993 has been laid today, three sitting days before the recess. Can you confirm that the remaining 37 days allowed for objections to be lodged before the order comes before Parliament will be available when the House resumes, and that a prayer for consideration by the House may be tabled at any time during the 40 days allowed? Will that still be permitted, despite the shoddy way in which that order has been laid, towards the end of the Session? My constituency is excluded from the order, so that makes it an important issue for me. Can you confirm that debate of that important order, which could mean the loss of jobs for Bradford, will not be prevented?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that such an opportunity will be available.
1.8 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: I find myself following the somewhat convoluted views of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), but today a vote of confidence has clearly been laid. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown courage, confidence and commitment in ensuring that the issue is resolved in the way that the House would want—and in the way for which the House has voted time and again. We should proceed to put the matter right in the fastest possible time.
I must comment on the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has left the Chamber. He always brings deep conviction to his views. I am glad that, although he has considerable reservations about what is afoot, he will be supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Lobby.
We are grateful to have such an exponent of the royal prerogative and of the rules of precedence as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I am glad that he was able to make his point in his own inimitable way. The right hon. Gentleman has a rather twisted view of the role of the royal prerogative, but he is entitled to that view because he no doubt reflects the twisted spire of Chesterfield in everything that he does. He certainly produced some extremely effective thoughts.
One reason for this debate is to deal with the practicalities of resolving the Maastricht question, which failed to reach a resolution last night, and another is that we should always examine European developments in considerable depth and with considerable anxiety. I am not one of those who are hell bent on joining everything that the Community or Brussels happens to offer—far from it. It is healthy to exhibit a degree of scepticism towards the rate at which the influence of Brussels has pervaded so much of this country's activities.
676
One of the Maastricht treaty's major contributions was the fact that it offered the prospect of reversing that thrust and that concentration of power for the first time. The commitment that powers should be devolved from the centre and then absorbed into the national political system of each member state has for the moment been put on hold. If ratification of the treaty brings the possibility of true subsidiarity, we shall for the first time be shifting back the pendulum of power to where the House rightly believes it should lie. That is one of the cardinal advantages of what my right hon. Friend and his colleagues negotiated at Maastricht.
The time that has elapsed since those negotiations has passed in vigorous exposé and discussion—and, yes, boredom and tedium—of what is in the treaty, how it affects the United Kingdom and which clauses are acceptable and which are not. We cannot say that the House has failed to examine the issue or that we have taken no notice of it. The treaty has absorbed the totality of this place for probably far too long. Our constituents are worried not about the boredom of not knowing what the heck the Maastricht saga is all about but about more important issues that affect them directly. They are worried about unemployment, law and order, schools and housing.
I do not want to get involved in the fine detail of the opt out, unlike the hon. Member for Middlesbrough who holds his brief well. However, it is distortion to believe that the United Kingdom offers cheap labour and that we gather investment only because we have low labour costs. The opposite is true. Nissan has come to Wearside and, by gosh, I am glad that it has. Toyota has come to Derbyshire, which I am sure deserves it. The fact that Japanese investment in this country is greater than in any other European nation state has nothing to do with labour rates and everything to do with the fact that the United Kingdom is a committed partner in the Community.
The Japanese have been able to work on the fact that we have a manufacturing culture that can provide high levels of skill and the greatest competitiveness in terms of cost of any outside plant that the Japanese have located anywhere in the world. I have had the privilege of visiting Honda in Japan. Nissan, Toyota and Honda regard the United Kingdom as a centre of excellence in terms of quality of production and competitive pricing. If we lose that advantage, we shall lose the jobs that have been brought to this country by investors such as the Japanese. In this fragile state of economic development, we must be careful not to lose those competitive international initiatives.
There is some doubt—let us put it no more strongly than that—about whether the implementation of the social chapter would tilt the balance against us in terms of cost. There is no future for British manufacturing industry unless profits generate investment to enable competitive products to be produced and unless costs are contained in an economy that does not inflate by virtue of having additional costs placed on it from extraneous sources.
We already have most of the social and employment benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said. We do not, however, necessarily have the same latitude as other countries to absorb further costs in relation to the prices of goods and services that we must export.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman talks about Britain being a committed partner. He has serious negotiating

677
experience in the European Community. How can we be seen as a committed partner if we are asked to leave the proverbial room when vital issues are being discussed? What the heck would our European partners think of us for having opted out from crucial discussions? The hon. Gentleman knows what happens with people who, unlike us, have been brought up in adversarial and hemispherical politics—they will take it ill if we opt out of an important aspect. The hon. Gentleman must know that from his experience.
Sir Giles Shaw: I do not think that they would see it like that. I think that they would say that the United Kingdom has, rather rarely, stood up for its own particular interests —just like the French, the Dutch, the Danes and the Italians.
I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. I well remember negotiating in the Industry Council, on which I was the United Kingdom Government's representative for a time, on shipbuilding, a matter of huge importance to a number of Opposition Members and to me. I was astonished at the negotiating tactics of other countries. The Italians sent two Ministers, because one Minister from the coalition Government would not trust another Minister in the same coalition Government, so the. Minister with responsibility for marine matters and the Minister for industry both arrived at the negotiating table. They had lots of devious thoughts when it came to the negotiation and implementation of European policy. There is no straight road through European negotiations. It is full of twists and curves. The G-factor is always there.
The other important fact about the current European situation is that we are suffering as a result of the far too easy implementation of European Community directives that have been developed in Brussels. We have an automatic system—almost unique in the Community—of implementing all the European Community directives and bringing them within our basic United Kingdom law almost overnight. Thus we get ourselves hooked on implementing directives in a way that other nation states within the Community certainly do not.
Let us consider the absurdity of the drinking water directive and the urban waste water treatment directive. If we go to Italy, Greece, Portugal or Spain, we see that not one of them has implemented those directives as fully as we have. Unless we can grapple with that problem and eliminate this insidious process, which weakens our capacity to run our own economy and industrial system in the way that we want, we shall be at a severe disadvantage.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the way to eliminate the problem is to make sure that we get right into the European Community and become a committed partner. Then we shall be able to influence the way that the Community develops. Originally, it was a free trade area. First, there was the Coal and Steel Community. Then we passed the Single European Act. Since then the single market has been established. We are removing barriers to trade.
We have an enormous capacity for trade within the Community. All that we have gained, but what we have not yet gained is a sufficient grip on Brussels. We cannot yet prevent it from generating legal material that, willy-nilly, we have to absorb, as a consequence of which we find that we are in real technical difficulties.
We have two issues to settle today. First, the Government deserve for a very long time to come the
678
confidence of the House in what they seek to do. Secondly, the Maastricht treaty must be ratified, once and for all. Who knows? When we are right on the inside of the European track we may find that, once again, we have saved ourselves by our exertions and Europe, perhaps, by our example.
1.18 pm
Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) referred to the time when he negotiated on behalf of this country's shipbuilding industry with other members of the European Community. The most important point that needs to be made is that, however obscure and difficult the negotiations may have been, the other members of the European Community still have shipbuilding industries. I represent a Merseyside constituency. Therefore, I am bound to say that our shipbuilding industry has been entirely devastated since that time. The hon. Gentleman's time as a negotiator could not, therefore, have been terribly successful.
I wish to make two points and I shall try to be brief because many hon. Members wish to speak. The first results from a conversation that I had last Saturday with a constituent who is a former Conservative voter and a former member of the Conservative party. He stopped me in the shopping precinct in Prescot and asked, "What is going on with the Government?" I said, "We will have to wait and see, but they are in some difficulty, as you well know." He said, "What mystifies me, George, is that I was brought up to believe in certain things, which made me a Conservative. I was brought up to believe that we have the best police force in the world and that when somebody had committed an offence the police arrested them and put them in prison until such time as they were charged or whatever. Unfortunately, it seems that once we arrest criminals we cannot hold them. I believed that we have the finest system of justice in this country and that when somebody was convicted they were guilty of the offence, but unfortunately it seems that as many innocent people are locked up in prison as guilty people. I was also brought up to believe in the Bank of England and the importance of our currency. We are all aware of what has happened under the exchange rate mechanism. Finally, I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to pay for the social chapter for other EC countries but are not prepared to extend its benefits, modest though they are, to our citizens."
I am pleased to say that that former Conservative party member intends to vote Labour at the next election. Unfortunately, if the boundary commissioner has his way, it will not be in my constituency. The point that he was making is serious and there is an old-fashioned expression to describe it—patriotism. What mystifies people of his generation, who lived through the second world war and the period between the wars, is the Government's abandonment of the old-fashioned concept of patriotism—not flag waving and jingoism, but the belief that a United Kingdom Government would try to represent the interests of their own people over and above those of others. They find the Government's abandonment of that principle offensive.
Several hon. Members, most movingly the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), referred to the mystification of the Maastricht treaty—the

679
obscurity of what we are arguing about and a parliamentary process that at times has left hon. Members bewildered, let alone people outside.
That leads to a cynicism—and perhaps in some ways a justified cynicism—among people outside the House, and the Government are feeling the backlash of that cynicism. The Christchurch by-election will be held in an about a week's time. It is common knowledge that there is no prospect of the Government's winning one of the safest Conservative seats. Confronted with such a backlash, it is time that the Government stood back and took stock of where they have gone wrong.
During the Maastricht process, I have sometimes been in the minority in my party. I did not abstain on Second Reading and, on amendments, I have consistently voted against the treaty. But cynicism has been displayed, both last night and in the cheap trick that the Prime Minister has tried to play on the British public and in the House today. People do not say that those who are against the Maastricht treaty are heroes and those who support it are fools or charlatans. People say that the House has not managed to explain to those outside precisely where it is moving, and why.
I believe that the most valid argument—the time for which has now passed—was that there should have been a referendum. Other hon. Members have made the argument clearly during the debate. If we do not trust people to make decisions on such issues, they are entitled to feel that the Government and, to some extent, the House are being cynical in the way in which they are using—or abusing—the powers vested in them.
I am glad to see that my brief comments have attracted the attention of the Prime Minister, who has returned to the Chamber, particularly as I am just about to mention his role in the process. There is no point in pretending other than that the chances are that the Government will survive the confidence motion. But that will not mark the end of the Prime Minister's or the Government's. problems. The abandonment of partiotism, and the cynicism engendered in the British public, will be there to haunt the Government. Whether the Government last six months, one year, two years or even three years, that backlash will wreak terrible revenge on them when they finally have the courage to face the electorate.
1.27 pm
Mr. William Cash: We have had a long and protracted debate. I must admit that it has gone on for many months—in my case it has gone on for about six years. In the past, I have tried to explain why I thought that we were being taken into a federal Europe. I first detected that possibility back in 1986, and decided that I would try to set out my stall on the subject. I was told that in those days the former Foreign Secretary, now Lord Howe, used to say that I was telling terror stories to frighten little children. We have come a long way since then.
I am, and will always be, deeply opposed to the principles that underlie the Maastricht treaty. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—I am more than glad to see him sitting on the Front Bench today—said that we must not be sidelined. I fear that the opt outs, both in respect of economic and monetary union, and the social
680
chapter, place us in an incredibly difficult position. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary requested me to write a paper for the Conservative manifesto committee some time ago. I said then that I thought that we should repudiate economic and monetary union because otherwise we would be stuck on the outside of the system which was developing as Europe became more closely integrated.
The problem is that the opt outs will not solve the problem for which they were designed. We will be drawn in by gravitational pull. If and when it is ratified, the Maastricht treaty will not actually be the Maastricht treaty, but a part of the treaty on European union taken collectively. Therefore, we shall be bound within the legal structure.
When, under section 2 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act, we make a separate decision, so it is said, about whether we go down the route of a single currency later, we shall face a stark choice. Shall we or shall we not remain in the European Community? The Maastricht treaty and the other treaties will all be taken collectively into one and that will present a problem for us.
If we try to renegotiate the arrangements that have been made over the past two years, the problem that we have set ourselves is this. By giving in on the Maastricht proposals —giving in to threats, I believe, and I do not think that appeasement is the right way to go in these matters—I fear that we shall not be able to unravel the arrangements, as the Government would wish to a certain extent, precisely because the unanimity of all the member states is needed to achieve the changes that are required and, as I understand it, are promised between now and 1996.
At least six of the member states are tied in by the fact that they are in the Community for the money that they get out of it. Nobody can doubt that the federalism that I predicted many years ago has now become a form of religious hysteria for some member states, to the point at which I cannot believe that they will all agree to unravel the arrangements on our terms. I see us, therefore, being locked into the legal structure with deleterious results for the United Kingdom.
That is not to say that I am, in any sense other than the way I have described, against the European Community as it has developed so far, although I believe that we should reform the Single European Act to give a better crack of the whip to the British. We do especially badly out of many arrangements. That unfairness led me to vote against the coal pit closure programme. I knew that the Germans got £9 billion of European Community state aids, whereas we get £160 million authorised state aids.
Sir Jim Spicer: I am surprised that my hon. Friend has at no point taken into account what will happen when we have the accession of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria. One of the great successes of Maastricht was to move forward to that new membership. Each and every one of those new members will be a supporter of this country. They will not only be contributors; their thinking about how the Community should develop is exactly along our lines.
Mr. Cash: I understand my hon. Friend's point. What is more, I am delighted to know that other member states are coming into the arrangements with us. The question is, what arrangements? My concern is that the proposals

681
under the Maastricht treaty, which apply to the whole of Europe, will damage Europe as a whole and the United Kingdom in particular.
I give an example by reference to the protocol on social policy and the social chapter. It is my firm belief that we should have resisted it, as we resisted economic and monetary union. We should not hand over the rights of our voters to the decisions of unelected bankers. In the same way, by allowing the other 11 member states to go ahead, the provisions of the social chapter, such as the 48-hour working time directive, will come in through the back door. Precisely because we agreed to articles 2 and 3 of the treaty changing the directives, when it comes to interpretation, the courts will say where there are doubts, "You agreed to social protection, you agreed to social cohesion and you agreed to economic cohesion." There will, therefore, be a substantial argument against us, even when we get to court, on the 48-hour working time directive. The decision will be taken on the basis of the Maastricht treaty arrangements which work so much against us because we conceded changes in the objectives set out in the early articles of the treaty.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) about the need to bring other member states in, but we must look at what is happening not only in relation to the vast number of member states that will eventually be involved and the new institutional arrangements with which it will be so difficult to cope, but in relation to the fact that the Community needs to be able to compete with the Association of South-East Asian Nations, with the countries of the Pacific basin and with Mexico. Why is Jaguar, for example, considering going to Mexico? The answer is that it knows that it will have a competitive advantage. I very much hope that the company does not move from Coventry. It cannot have very much faith in our arguments about the social chapter if it proposes to go to Mexico. We also know about the recent problems concerning British Airways and social dumping.
I fear that, under the arrangements, it will be impossible for Europe as a whole to compete with other countries in the world. The Germans in particular are worried that we shall be saddled with costs that will make us uncompetitive. That is the problem which I foresee. Why are the Germans taking up 85 per cent. of all the investment in eastern Europe? They are doing so because those countries are outside the European Community. I believe that that is one of the reasons why there is reluctance to accept those eastern European countries into the Community for the time being.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): My hon. Friend will know that I have more sympathy with his views than people may sometimes suspect. Surely the powerful and eloquent case that he is making is not a case against the Maastricht treaty but a case against being in Europe in the first place. My hon. Friend may recall that, in a debate last year, I said to him that, logically, his case was a case for the thoroughly unfeasible option of coming out of Europe. My hon. Friend said on that occasion—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions are supposed to be short. The hon. Gentleman has made one comment, and that is sufficient.
Mr. Cash: I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend did not reach the point that he intended to make, Mr. Deputy
682
Speaker. As I cannot remember the speech that I made on the occasion in question, I shall not be able to reply to his intervention. Would it be in order if I allowed my hon. Friend to get to his point so that I can do him the courtesy of a reply?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not the fault of the occupant of the Chair if the hon. Gentleman was not paying attention to the first question.
Mr. Cash: There is a huge problem as to whether or not we can exert an influence within the European Community, as evidenced by the fact that, when the former Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Copenhagen to try to convince the rest of the Community that there were fault lines in the exchange rate mechanism—which was supposed to reflect the fact that we were at the heart of Europe and could influence what went on—the other member states turned round and told us to go away. They said, "We do not believe a word that you are saying. We will go ahead with our own agenda." Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary came to the House and told us that we would not be recognising Croatia. But Herr Genscher thought and believed that here was an opportunity for the greatest foreign affairs victory for the German nation since 1945, so the screws were put on. Although we were supposedly at the heart of Europe, we found ourselves agreeing to recognise Croatia. Many would say that that gave rise to the problems now facing Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I am not saying that we should come out of the Community. We want to stay in the Community. We must stay in the Community, because it has benefits for us. I hope that, sooner or later, we shall be able to sort out the question of our deficit with it of £8 billion a year. We must not, however, find that, by entering into new arrangements, we end up depleting our influence rather than increasing it. The real difficulty with which we are faced is that we have entered a system with institutional arrangements that give other countries too much power and too many controls over us. Yes, we must stay in the European Community and we must say in the single market. That is why I am so concerned about the treaty.
The difficulty arose from the fact that we did not veto the matter in the first place. However, from what has been said today, I now know that if we are to have a general election on this point, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, in coalition or together if they were to win such a general election, would be 10 times worse than my objections and, believe me, I took this decision on my own terms.
If there had been even the slightest suggestion at any point in these proceedings that the Labour party was prepared to ditch this rotten treaty, I would have had a lot more respect for the Labour party. But it never was prepared to do that and it never will be. I will not in any way resile from my objections to the treaty. However, I am damned if I will have the Opposition running the affairs of this country within the Maastricht arrangements.
1.40 pm
Mr. George Galloway: I intend to be brief and to confine my remarks to a relatively narrow section of the debate. However, notwithstanding the rather uncharacteristic ire of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), it would be churlish of me to follow him

683
without paying tribute to the indefatigable pursuit that he and his fellows have made over these long months of what they thought was right for this House and this country.
As other hon. Members have said, the hon. Member for Stafford has written himself into the history books of this country as a skilful and dedicated parliamentarian. As this is the last opportunity during this Maastricht business for me to do so, I wanted to pay that tribute to the hon. Gentleman's efforts and dedication.
I want to confine my remarks to the issue of what deal was done prior to last night's vote and in relation to the vote that will take place at 4 pm today. In his opening remarks in relation to the Ulster Unionist party, the Prime Minister said that nothing was asked for and nothing was given. The Prime Minister must know that that possibility has no resonance. It is not believed anywhere important in this or other lands. It is not believed in the north of Ireland where the minority population at least must wait with some trepidation to see what was asked for or what was given.
Dame Jill Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Galloway: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way; I have only just begun.
That possibility is not believed in Dublin, a fraternal capital and a Government close to us with whom we have warm relations and share membership of the European Community. It is not believed in other capitals of the European Community, and it is not believed in Washington, that is for sure.
When I saw the nine grim-faced men emerge from their office last evening, and heard through the process of osmosis that occurs in this House that they had decided after all to try to save the Government's bacon, I and other hon. Members speculated about what the terms of the deal could possibly be.
Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman may not have been in his place when, from the Government Front Bench, it was said perfectly clearly that no deal was made, and the immediate reaction of the Ulster Unionists was to nod vigorously.
Mr. Galloway: As a less honourable lady once said in a less honourable place than this, "They would say that, wouldn't they?"
The point that I was making was that nobody believed that statement, notwithstanding the gusto with which it was made. Without being told what deal was done, one can only speculate what deal could possibly have been done. One must surely disregard the wilder speculations.
One of my colleagues jokingly said that perhaps the B Specials are back. Perhaps a British expeditionary force has been launched into Donegal to recover it for the Northern Ireland statelet. Perhaps we are going back to one man, two votes in certain Northern Ireland elections. Perhaps we are going back to institutionalised discrimination in housing and jobs—although discrimination still exists in respect of jobs. Not so long ago it was institutionalised in the rules, regulations and constitution Of the Northern Ireland statelet. Is that the discussion that took place with the nine grim-faced men who, as they
684
entered the Chamber, looked as though they had walked off the set of the "Jurassic Park" of British politics, the Northern Ireland political system?
Mr. David Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the tone of his remarks about our colleagues from Northern Ireland only confirms the deep suspicion that they now have of the Labour party?
Mr. Galloway: I now refer to that point. I turned to the BBC this morning for elucidation of what deal might have been done. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is the intellectual of that bunch of grim-faced men, say, "No deal was done as such"—he repeated that thrice—"but what we made"-1 wrote it down—"was a small investment for the future." I do not know who the hon. Gentleman's stockbroker is, but that investment struck me as being on a par with a little flutter on Polly Peck just a week or two before Mr. Nadir flew the coop.
Just what dividend did the hon. Gentleman expect? What must we expect as a dividend from that small investment that the hon. Gentleman's party made? That is always supposing, of course, that the Government keep their side of the bargain, as members of the Scottish National party found when they did a deal—"Dear Ian; Dear Margaret; yours sincerely, Ian; yours ever, Margaret." Such deals are not always kept. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said, that which is bought on Thursday can be sold on Monday.
Exactly what dividend or gain is expected by the nine gentlemen who tried to save the Government's bacon last evening? Not only the House but people in the north of Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, in Europe, in the United States of America and across the civilised world, where people have an interest in what happens in the Six Counties, deserve to know. The Government shamelessly exploited those hon. Members' fears and those of the community that they represent about developments in the Labour party's and others' thinking.
Mr. Hurd rose—
Mr. Galloway: The Foreign Secretary seems to be trying to elucidate further. I am glad to give way to him.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member the power and mischief of rumour, but he has spent the past 10 minutes embroidering on speculation. He has produced no evidence to refute the statement made by the Prime Minister and corroborated by the Unionists. I am sure that he is aware of the danger and damage that could be done, particularly in Ireland, by this kind of speculation. Would he please produce some evidence to support his remarks before he proceeds with his analysis?
Mr. Galloway: As the deal was only done in the later hours of last night, I am—
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): No deal was done.
Mr. Galloway: I do not believe that; that is the burden of my remarks. Nobody else believes it either. As the deal was done only late last night, and as the Prime Minister made his remarks this morning, time will tell just what deal has been done.

685
In the final stages of last night's debate, the Secretary of State for Employment said, with his usual flourish, that his party was the Conservative and Unionist party. In the past few weeks, the Government have been determined—according to the hon. Member for Upper Bann, it has only been evident in the past few weeks—to reaffirm and strengthen their commitment to the Unionist cause. Is anyone seriously being asked to believe that that policy and the words of last night were not uttered to keep the Unionist Members on side?
It is exactly that capitulation to the powers of veto of those nine gentlemen and the people they represent that has landed us with the dreadful decades and centuries-long problem of Ireland.
I am not in any sense making light of the fears of the Unionist population, but I heard Ministers shamelessly describe a discussion document written by the Opposition spokesman on Ireland as being akin to a plan devised by the devil. Conservative Members are aware, however, that the idea of joint sovereignty has occupied intellectual thinking time in the backrooms of Governments of both parties for many years. They are aware that the perfectly respectable, fraternal Government of the Republic of Ireland also believe that that idea might be worth pursuing. Conservative Members know that it is an idea whose time may well have to come. For the Government to exploit that idea shamelessly in order to dragoon the nine grim-faced gentlemen into their Lobby does them just as much discredit as the arm twisting and other attempts of duress, by one means or another, to dragoon the parliamentary majority for the Maastricht Bill.
The Government know that we are close to a time when we will all have to think about ways in which to get out of the desperate, dreadful and miserable decades-long running sore that is the history of Britain and Ireland. We should be encouraging responsible, respectable democratic politicians to talk to other such politicians to try to find a way out of that problem, because the alternative means that our sons and daughters and their sons and daughters will be sitting in the House talking about the blood and tears that continue to flow in Ireland. That is the story of Ireland.
I believe that when the history of this period comes to be written, not only will the honourable and noble campaign led by the hon. Member for Stafford be of great interest to the historians, but the squalid shabby way in which the Government tried to escape from the consequences of their actions will be just as luminous.
1.53 pm
Dame Jill Knight: I wish to distance myself as far as possible from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). Given the clear statement that has been made by my right hon. Friends and which has been corroborated by a number of Unionist Members, it is utterly disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman to pursue his argument.
New Members have to select the special interest subjects that they will follow. Obviously, it is impossible to become involved in all the subjects that the business of the House encompasses, so we select subjects based on our constituencies. Members with country constituencies will have an interest in agricultural matters, while those with coastal constituencies will be interested in retirement homes, shipping, fishing and so on.
686
In Birmingham, a part of which I have been proud to represent for 27 years, our main interest is industry. It is our life blood, and it is crucial to our constituents. It is also crucial to the rest of the country, because when Birmingham does well, Britain does well, and when Birmingham suffers, the country suffers. It follows that the opinions, advice and experience of industrial bodies such as the CBI and chambers of industry and commerce are to me a mixture of the tablets of stone, "Erskine May" and the seven pillars of wisdom.
The people in those organisations can create for my constituents jobs, security, opportunities and prosperity, and I listen with great care to everything that they say. Their advice on the social policy protocol is clear and unequivocal. They do not want it at any price because they know that it will push up costs, destroy jobs and be a bureaucratic nightmare. It will deny employers and employees their right to basic, free negotiations with each other. They do not want—and I believe that our people do not want—direction from Brussels.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon Lady give way?
Dame Jill Knight: No, I will not give way to that hon. Gentleman. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) if he wishes to intervene.
I have detected all along that Joe Public is perfectly happy to be part of the European club. He approves of being a member of a Community which eases trade between its member states, which eases travel and banking facilities, and which is a power and a strength for peace and a voice in the world. Joe Public becomes upset when he thinks that we may reach a point at which we are bullied by Brussels, and I understand that feeling.
Some months ago there was a great prawn crisp row because people believed that prawn crisps were to be snatched from their mouths by the vicious interference of Brussels. People wrote to me in great distress because they had been told that Brussels would not allow us to continue to use double-decker buses. That fear was just as fallacious as the one about prawn crisps, but we have gone from crisps to buses to other topics. Such issues, rather than not being a member of the Community, are what worry people.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke fluently about not agreeing with being told to leave the room. We want to be able to say that Britain does not agree with some parts of Brussels diktats. We do not approve of being told by Brussels that we must do what she says when those instructions exceed the power and wisdom of the House. We want to keep for ourselves the power to pass our own laws. There is nothing wrong with that.
Labour Members fail to understand that, although we are a member of the club and proud to be so, and although we wish to remain so, there will always be some things that come out of Brussels to which we object. I objected strongly to some of the rules and diktats on butchers shops and some Labour Members joined me in my objections. Many small butchers shops closed as a result of directions from Brussels.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The English sausage.
Dame Jill Knight: As always, my hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. Some hon. Members fail to understand that, while we want to be part of Europe, that does not mean that we have to follow it in everything that it says.
Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in relation to the social charter. Surely the way in which we employ and pay people and the way that their pensions and other conditions are calculated are bound up with our traditions and cultures. Therefore, it is right that they should be a matter not for Europe and for Brussels but for contractual negotiation between employers and employees within the countries of Europe.
Dame Jill Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that is exactly the point that I am making. The hon. Member for Linlithgow felt that we should not ask to leave the room. The whole point is that there are sectors —my hon. Friend has just listed some—in which we want to be able to keep our own counsel and do what we think is right for our own people.
Let us be clear that employers are fully in favour of genuine workplace health and safety measures, of initiatives to improve the way in which the single market works—for example, recognition of equivalent vocational qualifications—and of fair and level working conditions. All of those are already catered for in the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. There is no need for the social chapter.
Good employee involvement cannot be brought about by direction from Brussels. Good employer involvement is for the good employer to organise with his good employees and that is something which every sensible employer seeks. One cannot run a successful business if the people one employs are unhappy and feel that they have been treated wrongly and unfairly.
Dr. Godman: Am I acceptable to the hon. Lady?
Dame Jill Knight: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is acceptable.
Hon. Members: Favouritism.
Dr. Godman: I assure the House that the hon. Lady and are not even hon. Friends, although she gave way to me with characteristic good grace.
I say, thank God for Brussels, where the health and safety of fishermen and offshore oil and gas industry employees is concerned, not forgetting that dreadful occurence that overtook Piper Alpha when constituents of mine were consumed in those flames. Brussels, with its health and safety legislation by way of directives is improving matters for those offshore workers.
Mr. Hurd: Rubbish.
Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman may say rubbish, but—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Dame Jill Knight: But that is all happening without the social chapter. Every sensible employer must seek good relations, good health and safety and all the other important factors that we all want. All of the really great employers—Cadburys. Marks and Spencer, Westland—understand that very well and look after employees in the
688
way that they think best. They will not look after them any better because someone in an office in Brussels tells them to do so. We have been saved from all that bureaucracy by the way in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has dealt with the social protocol.
The Labour party makes me so angry. Many things about it worry me, but its hypocrisy worries me most of all. It mouths pious platitudes about law and order, but then votes against every measure that would improve them. It tries to make enormous political capital out of unemployment, but intends to vote for something that will increase unemployment.
I salute the integrity of hon. Friends who have fought their fight, but they have lost the battle. However keenly they feel, they are democrats at heart and they know that the House has voted in favour of the Maastricht treaty and that, over many months, the House has repeatedly endorsed the Government's view on it. There is no point in calling for a referendum, because we had a referendum on whether Britain should join Europe. We cannot have referendums at every point as that policy develops. That would be utterly ridiculous.
I shall have enormous pleasure not only in voting with the Government in the Lobby tonight, but in cheering when they win.
2.6 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Many factors have come together to create a very unpleasant few hours for the Conservative party, which we are all delighted to watch. Nothing that has happened today will solve the Government's long-term problem. The very fact that the Prime Minister has had to threaten an election to bring his own party into line is a sign of weakness, not of strength. The bitterness that will linger in his party will fester and grow.
I do not know where the Prime Minister developed that style of leadership. It certainly was not there at the beginning of his political career on Lambeth council, which I watched. That council was decisively led by Bernard Perkins, who took up clear positions and persuaded his party to follow him. There was nothing in the Prime Minister's early tutorship that would have led him to believe that he should say one thing to one wing of his party and something else to the other wing, and then hope to muddle through. That was not what he learnt in his first elective office. If Bernard Perkins were here today, he would feel some shame at the spineless way in which the Conservative party is being led.
Almost the entire debate on Maastricht, which has stretched on for almost two years, has been conducted completely dishonestly. The Conservative party is telling the British people that it involves a small set of changes of no great importance. It says that we will not necessarily have to join a single currency, yet the treaty is about currency union. Even the idea of having an opt-out clause on the central points of the treaty raised the question why, if we want to reserve the right to opt out of currency union and the central bank, do we bother to go through all this pain? I do not have the slightest doubt that this is a strategy of slowly, slowly catchee monkey. The Prime Minister has tried to lead his party into accepting the treaty by saying that it is not really much of a treaty. That has not worked. People throughout the country are genuinely confused. We are told that the treaty is not

689
about a united states of Europe; it is just a small number of economic changes dragged down by the incubus of the social chapter.
The truth is that the treaty is a major step towards the creation of a united states of Europe. Before it is even ratified by all the 12 members, there are the opening rounds of the debate about the next stage. It is building for the intergovernmental conference in 1996, at which all our European partners will debate a common defence strategy, a common defence force, and a common foreign policy. Whatever Conservative Members may tell their constituents, they know that we are moving stage by stage towards a united states of Europe and are deceiving the people of Britain by pretending otherwise.
I am prepared to debate the creation of a democratic, socially progressive Europe, because that would be a step forward—but we are not being told about that. The Prime Minister has problems because many of the Conservative rebels who have made life so difficult for the Government over the past 18 months are fighting to prevent that happening because they are nationalists. They love the concept of this nation and its rules and Parliament, and they do not want them to go.
Many Conservative Members do not display the same integrity. They tell their constituency associations that the treaty is of far less significance and importance. That is the reason for the mess and why the Prime Minister must come to the House and threaten a dissolution, to drag reluctant Conservative Members through a Division, knowing that they are lying to themselves as they walk through the Lobby doors.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: If the treaty is so desperately bad, why would the hon. Gentleman vote for a more full-blooded version of it?
Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman may be unaware of my position. I oppose the treaty because it gives power to bankers. I oppose giving English bankers any power. I am broadly opposed to bankers. I see from their track record in the conduct of financial affairs that the only thing they willingly do is to give money to crooks such as Robert Maxwell and Asil Nadir. People like that can always get money. Bankers are a naturally conservative group, and I shall never be happy with a treaty that gives great power to bankers.
I am not, however, opposed to a united Europe. I am prepared to participate in any debate on the format of a united Europe and on the democratic checks and balances that should be in place.
Irrespective of that issue, and given the state of the country, I would vote for anything to get rid of the shower on the Benches opposite. Even if I agreed with them, I would vote against them today in the slight hope that that might lead to the Government's downfall in a general election. I would do anything to precipitate the next general election. I would be prepared to sit naked in the middle of Parliament square if it would advance the cause of a general election.
Mr. Frank Cook: It would not.
Mr. Livingstone: I am not surprised.
The Government should be honest about what is behind this debate—and there is bitterness because they have not been that. An honest, open debate on whether we
690
should move towards a united states of Europe would be a cleansing experience for all right hon. and hon. Members.
Nothing was more typical of the conduct of this debate than when the Foreign Secretary slithered to his feet during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). My right hon. Friend was pointing out that the social chapter has very limited powers. If any of my other right hon. or hon. Friends imagine that it would bring some form of revolutionary socialism to Europe, they would be sorely disappointed. It embodies a small series of reforms with which even the Liberal Democrats can feel happy. It has very little real backing or power. Nevertheless, it marks a small step forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said that the same speeches made against the social chapter could have been heard when Parliament debated the law to prevent young children from being used as chimney sweeps. The Foreign Secretary intervened to say, "But there could be a European directive about paper boys." The right hon. Gentleman did not mention paper girls because he is a bit backward on political correctness.
That is the kind of nonsense we have been hearing. That is not what Europe is about. There may be the odd problem—such as the flavouring of crisps mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), but they are peripheral to the real issue. Incidentally, we already have legislation to protect paper boys and paper girls. How typical of the Foreign Secretary to be unaware that it is on the statute book and say, "You could even get legislation from Brussels about the working conditions of paper boys."
It is difficult today for boys and girls to get such jobs, because, as there is no other work, grown men and women are doing them. The same occurred during the great recession in the United States, when men and women were driven to taking jobs that were normally done by children. The Government have managed to replicate that. That is the context in which we are holding this debate.
We are told that there was no deal involving the Ulster Unionists. Does anyone in Britain seriously believe that no understanding was reached? Of course, no one signed a bit of paper because one side did not trust the other. It may yet be revealed that someone took a tape recorder to the interview and, if so, it might be interesting and should be published.
It is an insult to the intelligence of the British people, let alone to that of the House, to deny that a deal was struck. A deal was struck, but at what cost to the chances of bringing to an end the appalling decades of violence and discrimination? That is perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the proceedings. When I hear the Prime Minister say that there has been no deal, I do not believe him; nor will anyone else in Britain. When the Ulster Unionists go home, they will not be saying that there was no deal. I imagine that the leader of the Ulster Unionists who did the deal may be counting his fingers. A deal was certainly done. It represents a step backwards for any hope of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the changes that have undoubtedly occurred in the past 10 years has been the improvement in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic? Would it not be a cause of great concern if that good

691
relationship were in any way undermined by a feeling in Dublin that there has been an understanding, if not a deal? Should not every effort be made to continue a good working relationship between London and Dublin, which includes the understanding that Dublin has an interest in what happens in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Livingstone: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Discussions in the corridors of the Dail today will centre on the cost of the deal and what it will mean. The deal will cause a setback and will mean distrust. The Irish Government will know that, when the crunch came, the first thing to be sacrificed was progress in the developing relationship between the British and Irish Governments.
Mr. Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman remember a deal done years ago between the Labour party and the Liberals? It was called the Lib-Lab pact. An understanding was reached, and the Liberals sustained the Labour party in office for many years. Does he not understand that the Ulster Unionists were upset when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) suggested rule from Dublin? It is no wonder they joined us.
Mr. Livingstone: There is a small difference between the two cases. As I remember it, there was an open and public debate about the Lib-Lab pact. I was opposed to it and would have preferred it if my party, having lost the majority, had called an election. In any event, the pact was conducted in public and was honest and open. That is the difference between the Lib-Lab pact and the squalid little deal which, we are told, was not made.
Mr. John Townend rose—
Mr. Livingstone: I must press on because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I am sure that the Government will survive today's motion, but they assume that the issue will then go away. It will not. Labour went through a trauma in its relationship to Europe just over 20 years ago. In a remarkable mirror image of the events of the past two days, a Tory Government in trouble were sustained in the Division Lobbies by 69 Labour Members who kept the Government in power because of their overall commitment to Europe. It has left a legacy of more than a decade of internecine warfare, bitterness and strife within the Labour party. It is only 21 years later that one of those 69 hon. Members was able to get elected to the leadership of the Labour party. He is one of only five survivors. Almost every one of the 69 who has not been claimed by death or the Social Democratic party—which is almost the same thing—has gone. That legacy haunted us, and this deal will haunt the Tory party.
On the BBC news this morning I heard some of the broadcast from the Swindon Conservative association. I heard the applause, the jubilation in Swindon—
Mrs. Currie: Slough.
Mr. Livingstone: I beg your pardon—Slough. There was jubilation among the Tory audience when they heard that their Government had been defeated. The rank and file members of the Tory party, the core Tory vote, do not support the treaty. I remember seeing the late lain Macleod, as local government election results were coming ill on television one night in the mid-I960s and the Scottish
692
National party was making great advances and a Labour Government were in power, having it put to him that that was bad news for the Tories. His reply was that any swing to nationalism was good for the Tories because the Tory party was the English nationalist party.
That is the divide. Labour is an internationalist party. When Clem Attlee retired, he did not say that he was going to spend more time with his family. If we read his biography, we see that he wanted to devote more time to rebuilding the idealism of the United Nations' move towards global government. There are broad internationalist instincts in all of us on these Benches. It is inevitable that we should be attracted towards European and various other international projects, but the gut, core basis of the Conservative party is English nationalism. The Conservatives are betraying their nationalism today.
Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Livingstone: No, I shall not give way again. I am about to conclude my speech.
The Tories are betraying their English nationalism today. There will be bitterness in every constituency association. The rebels who will be humiliated today by being driven through the Lobby will never forgive and will continue to organise. This will be short-term victory. The victory gained today will result in defeat for the Conservative party at the next general election.
Mr. Jack Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you provide the House with some assistance? Earlier today, the question of assisted area status was raised on a point of order. Is the House aware that this morning correspodence was sent to the local authorities in my constituency, at least, regarding assisted area status? I understand that we are not to be informed about that in the House until Monday. Is that not again an example of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
2.21 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) talked about his party in a way that I could not recognise. He said that it is an international party, but I remember when the Labour party was most anti-European. It was only with great difficulty that the original European legislation, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was passed. It is true that 69 Labour Members of Parliament voted for the original treaty of Rome. Apart from them, it was always the Conservative party that was keen on Europe.
There has, however, been a consistent division within our party about Europe, for understandable and patriotic reasons. However, it has gone too far. Tactics were used during the passage of the Maastricht Bill that were very different from those used when we considered the treaty of Rome. At that time, there was most strenuous opposition from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I remember that Derek Walker-Smith and others in the Conservative party opposed the treaty most strenuously, but they never opposed it on grounds of procedure; nor, so far as I can recollect, did they ever vote for something in which they did not believe.
Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Peter Hordern: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Last night we saw, not for the first time, some of my hon. Friends vote in favour of the social chapter which they, above all, resist and resent. They did so for a tactical consideration because they thought that to do so would result in defeat for the Act. It was wrong to do that. When the Government were defeated last night in the second Division, the vote did not represent the views of the House. There is no majority in the House for the social chapter. It was, therefore, absolutely right for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make this issue a matter of confidence in Her Majesty's Government and to connect with it the social chapter. This business needs to be sorted out once and for all.
We devoted an enormous amount of time to consideration of the Act. Many comments during this debate, and others, have been made about that. We held separate debates on the question of the referendum. I know of no Parliament in the European Community that has given such careful consideration to this matter as the House of Commons. We all have different views about the meaning of the Maastricht treaty, so how could the Government have put forward a simple proposition to which the people of our country could respond yea or nay? I do not believe that such a proposition would be possible and, moreover, we would be evading our responsibilities unless we were to consider the treaty in detail and arrive at our conclusion after the most careful consideration.
Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He mentioned our former colleague, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, later Lord Broxbourne, who was not only a principled opponent but, once the decision had been taken, became an active member of the delegated European Parliament, to which he made a most constructive contribution.
Sir Peter Hordern: That is true. I hope that after today's vote we shall all be able to take a much more constructive and realistic approach to the European Community and the intergovernmental conference. That is necessary, and it is certainly necessary for our party.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I want to add emphasis to what my right hon. Friend has said. Continental parliamentarians view the process that we have been going through with some bewilderment, but they admire enormously the detailed way in which we have considered the treaty, which is unparalleled in Europe.
Sir Peter Hordern: Of course that is so, and the whole House knows that it is so. It was right that we gave the Bill endless consideration, but it is now right to reach a conclusion.
I wish to say a word about the social contract. I am not talking about its interpretations, which are many and various, but many people say that all the other European Parliaments and Governments are in favour of the social chapter, and I am sure that that is true; but employers and business men, large and small, throughout the Community are becoming increasingly concerned about the costs of labour and of conducting business. It is an example of Euro-sclerosis. European companies are increasingly investing overseas because the costs of employment in the Community are becoming prohibitive.
694
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the issue, therefore, is jobs. We must carefully weigh the social improvements. I am not against them. Indeed, I think that there is clearly room for improvements in social matters, and I have no doubt that they will be introduced, but surely it is better that they should be introduced by individual countries. After all, we have a long history of social improvement, especially in health and safety, and under the Single European Act various improvements were made to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We found no difficulty in accepting those improvements, for the good reason that we had already adopted most of them.
We must, however, be very careful about the extra costs that would be imposed by the social chapter. Irrespective of whether we opt out, it is a matter which must concern all of us as Europeans. As a director of a large European company and chairman of the United Kingdom subsidiary, I am aware of the increasing concern about investing in Europe and how attractive it has become to invest in other parts of the world. I feel sure that that trend will continue and it is bound to have an impact on employment.
Mr. Frank Cook: I should like to put to the right hon. Member the case that I put yesterday might not European transnationals, which can offer their British work force rates of pay, conditions of work and health and safety requirements below European requirements, experience more industrial unrest because they are selling their British work force short compared with workers across the channel?
Sir Peter Hordern: I do not believe that that is so. We pay our social costs in a different way from other European Community countries. We pay much more through Customs and Excise duties than through direct charges on companies. It is important to bear that in mind.
Let us consider the amount of investment that we are able to attract into our country. Some 70,000 extra jobs have been created through Japanese companies. The great majority of American and Japanese investment in this country has been made as a result of the excellent terms of employment and the competitive conditions that we have created, not least because of the low levels of direct taxation and corporation tax. Other countries find the United Kingdom extremely attractive for investment, and I very much hope that they will continue to do so.
I have a word of warning for my hon. Friends who oppose not only Maastricht, but the European Community itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said that he had been opposed to the Community for six years. But I recollect his voting in favour of the Single European Act. He was absolutely right to do so, and I do not object to that. Like many of us, he thought that it would be right to have a large market of 340 million people and break down the barriers between the various countries. But it was the Single European Act which introduced majority voting to the European Council of Ministers. The Single European Act gave the Brussels Commission so much more power to issue directives, from which so much trouble has flowed.
We must never make ourselves so antipathetic to the European Community that we endanger the level of investment from other countries. Unless we show ourselves to be part of the European Community—indeed,

695
leaders of it—why should other countries believe that we form a proper part of the growing market which we all wish to see? I say that from personal experience—I have been chairman of a large oil company in this country for six years. That company has a substantial refinery on Humberside, which alone, pays Customs and Excise duty of £60 million a month. If it were ever thought that we were unwilling members of the European Community, the additional investment required to improve our refineries would not be forthcoming because the company would feel that we were not interested in our prosperity. That would not happen immediately, because the parent company would wish to protect its investment, but it would ultimately happen.
My hon. Friends may carry opposition to Europe so far, but they should never carry it so far that it works against the interests of our fellow countrymen.
2.32 pm
Miss Joan Lestor: I have been in the House long enough and read enough political diaries to know how easily history is rewritten. We never had a referendum in this country on the issue of entering the EEC. We had a referendum on whether to remain in the EEC, which is a different concept and has a different psychological effect on people. We have never had a referendum on the Maastricht treaty to put the issue to the British people. The treaty was not ready until after last year's general election, so it could not possibly have been put before the people. I shall not pursue that issue; suffice it to say that people should not rewrite history—some of us remember it as we have been around a long time.
One finds some interesting things lying around the Lobby. I found the briefing document for the Conservative party. It is so bad that hardly anybody has used it, but I shall paraphrase what it contains, as it is interesting. It states that today's vote is a matter of confidence in the Government, and on that issue, every Conservative should support the Government because if they are defeated there will be a general election. It states that the treaty will be ratified by Britain, and only the continuance of a Conservative Government can guarantee that it will be ratified without the job-destroying social chapter. One or two hon. Members mentioned that. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] We shall see.
The Government's attempt to portray the social chapter as a monster with an uncontrollable appetite for jobs does not hold water. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said, it also does not have as its objective the devastation of what the Govrenment have left of the British economy. It talks about basic rights, about decent working conditions, about consultation between employers and labour and about equality of treatment for men and women. I am surprised by the two hon. Ladies who have spoken today. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) let the cat out of the bag. She said that it was all a question of jobs and that they came first. She said that it was not a question of pay.
When we debated equal pay for women and anti-sex-discrimination laws, the arguments used were that we could not afford it. It was said that it was really more important that women should be paid at low rates than
696
that we should have to face the competition if they were treated equally with men. It was not equal pay which destroyed this economy. It was not anti-discrimination laws which destroyed this economy.
When the Labour Government left office, we had unemployment of 1·3 million. The figure has never been as low as that since. When we wanted to take little boys out of chimneys, we were told, "Oh my God, it will cost so much money that there will be unemployment." Every time that there is a decent proposal for a piece of social legislation, somebody says that it will cost us dear. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South and her hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) have benefited from equal pay. They should be the first to defend the rights of workers when we are in Europe.
Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Lestor: I will not give way to the hon. Lady. I asked her to give way to me and she would not do so. Let us have no more of this rubbish.
Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Lestor: I will not give way even to the hon. Gentleman, however charming he may be. I only have a few minutes, so he can see me afterwards in the Lobby.
The social chapter is modest in its proposals. It involves legislation on working conditions and on equality, but it excludes the right to strike and rates of pay. I should like the social chapter to be stronger. Now that we are in Europe, we are entitled to the best protective legislation for all the workers in Europe.
The briefing that I read while waiting to speak says that the social chapter would take us back 20 years. I would not mind going back 20 years to the Labour Government. We had jobs then and we had a great deal of security. There are many people who would not mind going back to that. When Conservative Members talk about health and safety legislation, I ask them who introduced it. Let us be careful not to rewrite too much history.
The Government seem to take the view that protective legislation would destroy the rights of people in this country and they say that we want to do it ourselves. They say that we do not want to be dictated to by Brussels and that we do not want such matters determined by people outside here. The Government have had 14 years to do some of those things themselves. They squandered all the benefits of North sea oil and they have sold many of this country's assets. Poverty has increased and there has been an increase in the number of businesses collapsing. We have seen children and adults living in abject poverty.
Eleven other countries cannot be mad. It is dangerous for anyone, especially Prime Ministers, to say, "I am the one who is right. Everybody else is wrong." That is a very dangerous concept.
Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Lestor: I will not give way. Nobody gave way when I tried to intervene. We have a very short time.
Mr. Heald: Afterwards in the Lobby?
Miss Lestor: I will see the hon. Gentleman afterwards in the Lobby.
Let us get one or two facts straight about the need for protective legislation for workers. One quarter of Europe's poorest people are United Kingdom citizens. On any table

697
that is used, one in four United Kingdom citizens live in poverty and 4 million of them are children. The wages councils have been abolished. Even with the 32 changes in the classification of unemployment, it has changed little over the years. One fifth of Europe's unemployed live in this country. Our Commission on Social Justice has shown that the gap between rich and poor in this country in 1993, 14 years after a Tory Government came to power, is greater than it has been for 107 years. Yet the Government are telling us that we must leave these matters to them. We have left it to them for far too long. This whole debate has debased politics and it has debased the Conservative party. The Government have wriggled and have done all sorts of things that no politician in this country should do.
What we are asking in connection with the social chapter is simple. The chapter contains a requirement to
"take account of the diverse forms of national practice, in particular in the fields of contractual relations, and the need to maintain competitiveness in the Community economy."
That is what we are asking for, and I shall never understand how the Government can have failed to accept that.
2.40 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Low wages do not equal low costs. Japan is a high-wage but a low-cost economy. It is a high-wage, low-cost economy not because of any social chapter and not because of employment regulations but because it is an intensely productive economy and so can afford high wages and good conditions in the workplace. Surely that is the key point that Opposition Members have missed. Wages and conditions must be matched by productivity, and less productive countries can only compete on low-added-value, less sophsisticated goods. If wages and conditions are out of line with productivity, the result is unemployment. The classic example is Spain, which has some of the toughest labour regulation laws but the highest incidence of involuntary redundancy and some of the highest unemployment in Europe.
How does one achieve productivity in one's economy? One does not achieve it by means of social charters or labour regulation but by providing a good education and high levels of investment. The Leader of the Opposition groped towards a realisation of that in his speech yesterday, but refused to accept the implications of it, although they are clear. First, we need to carry on reforming our education to make it more rigorous so that we improve the quality of our work force. Labour has opposed every education reform that we have introduced —although it has belatedly done some U-turns.
Secondly, we need investment. Where does investment come from? It comes from savings. It is no coincidence that Japan and the successful economies of east Asia have some of the highest levels of savings in the world. Savings are the pool from which investment comes. High levels of saving also bear down on inflation and consumption and help the productive side of an economy. What has Labour's policy on savings been? It clobbered savers in the 1970s, with huge taxes and negative interest rates. Have the Opposition learnt anything since then? They came to the electorate last year proposing an investment income surcharge, so that anyone who saved would be taxed once when they earned the money and a further whack when they saved it. That is how far Labour has come. If the state spends too much, the state will crowd out private
698
investment. Yet Labour's policy is a policy of higher public spending. Similarly, if the state taxes too much, it will crowd out private investment.
Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Oppenheim: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I do not have time; I think that he understands the constraints of time. What is Labour's policy on tax? It is to raise taxes, which would mean less saving and less investment.
Labour Members still do not accept the need for investment and they do not seem to accept the need for a successful investment-led industrial sector. Yesterday, we heard them sneer every time a business man or a trade organisation was quoted. They still sneer at success and they asked us yesterday why we mention business men so often. I will tell them why. We mention business men because it is business men—and business women—who employ people. They are the ones who create the employment. The Leader of the Opposition accused us yesterday—
Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Oppenheim: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot because other hon. Members are hoping to speak.
The Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday that we were working towards a sweatshop economy. But we in this country enjoy higher wages and better conditions by far than when Labour was in power and, contrary to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's claims, we have higher standards and better conditions than most EC countries. Even where, technically, EC countries have better conditions, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well, countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal do not enforce them.
We have been able to achieve better conditions because, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said, we have in the past 15 years made up much of the ground that we lost in the previous decades. In the 1960s and 1970s, productivity in manufacturing grew at the lowest level of all the G7 countries. In the 1980s, we achieved the highest level of growth—higher even than in Japan.
In the 1970s, when Labour was in power, manufacturing output fell. In the 1980s, we had the fastest growth of manufacturing output of any major industrial country with the exception of Japan. We have made up some of the lost ground. We may lag behind some of the leading countries, but we have caught up considerably since 1979.
What about protection for workers? The best protection for workers is not edicts from politicians; it is a good education so that employers will compete for them. If employers can invest more because there is a larger pool of savings in the economy, employers will employ more people. That is the best protection for workers and that is what happens in Japan. Employment regulations in Japan are minimal, but conditions in large companies—as the Leader of the Opposition admitted yesterday—are among the best in the world. Unemployment in Japan is 3 per cent. and all without the social chapter.
Opposition Members have argued that the European Community needs a social dimension to counter benefits to business of the single market. In that, there is an assumption that the single market does not benefit

699
workers. However, of course, it does. It benefits them as consumers and producers. Protection does not ultimately benefit employees, as employees have discovered in the most protected economies such as those in India and Brazil.
If we protect inputs to industry, such as steel and semiconductors, we will simply put workers out of business in the car industry, which uses steel, and in the electronics industry, which uses semiconductors. That is why Conservative Members opposed further protection for the coal industry. If we protect coal miners from foreign competition or from competition from gas, we will put workers out of jobs all over the country because they rely on energy as a basic input to their industries.
Even more economically illiterate than the argument that we need a social dimension because the single market does not benefit workers is the argument that we need a level playing field of standardised social conditions for fair competition. Does that mean that we should not trade with Bangladesh because it has lower wages than we have? Does it mean that the Americans have the right to say that they will not buy Jaguar cars or Rolls-Royce aero engines because we pay our workers less than they do?
The logic in that is that there should be trade only with countries that have identical conditions to ours. That would affect less developed countries. It would prevent them from developing and from being able to afford the higher added-value, more sophisticated goods that we want to sell to them.
The danger in this debate is that the European Community and, to a large extent, Opposition Members are missing the point. Instead of concentrating on improving education, on the quality of the work force, on reducing Government deficits and on encouraging saving and hence investment in industry, they think that we can have rigid standards and hide from foreign competition behind protective walls.
That is a fool's game. The last occasion when similar policies were pursued was in the 1930s. We are in danger of pursuing those policies again in relation to eastern Europe. At the very time when those eastern European countries are struggling to turn their economies into market economies, we are telling them that they can sell to us, but only the goods in respect of which they are not competitive. With regard to textiles, steel or commodity chemicals, we raise barriers.
To the successful Asian economies we say, "All right, you can sell to us, but we'll put quotas and heavy tariffs on semiconductors, electronic goods and cars." That is the road down which the Community is going and it has unpleasant echoes of the late 1920s and 1930s.
The Opposition's attitude is irrelevant to the needs of the country and to the European Community. Last night, the Opposition in effect voted against Maastricht, despite the fact that they have told us that they are in favour of it. That should come as no surprise, bearing in mind the history of twisting and turning which has characterised Labour's policy on the European Community over the past 20 years.
Just to defeat the Government last night might have given Opposition Members a certain short-lived pleasure -I do not begrudge them that—but it contributed nothing to the debate. The speech by the Leader of the Opposition
700
—it was great knockabout, do not get me wrong; it would have gone down very well in a minor Glasgow magistrates court—had no substance. It was a triumph of pomposity over substance and it added nothing to the debate. It brought Parliament into disrepute and did nothing to take the European Community forward.
2.49 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I must correct the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). Last night, the Opposition voted to reject the opt out of the social protocol. That is what we voted for and that is what we effectively delivered. Today's debate is a separate issue, as the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) reminded us.
I was present throughout yesterday's debate, except for 12 minutes when I took a cuppa and a sandwich in the Tea Room. I have heard all the exchanges today, except during two periods when I was speaking on the telephone behind the Chair. I make no complaint about being present all that time, because I had the privilege of hearing the provocative contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) yesterday, and the incisive contribution by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). He made some interesting comments on the situation across the Irish channel.
I must associate myself in part with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). He questioned the reason for the sudden change of allegiance of the Ulster Unionists. It is significant that they have been absent almost all today and that they made no attempt to contribute to yesterday's debate. I heard it said that they had three speeches but did not know which to deliver. One was in favour, one was against, and one was in case of an abstention. When I put it to one of them—I will not identify him—that they had decided to vote for the Government, he said yes. I said, "Why? Was it a deal?" He said, "Not a deal, more a commitment." As my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead said, the population of Ireland generally will be very interested to know just what was worth the 30 pieces of silver.
Yesterday, we heard the contribution of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). It was a very moving display of personal sadness and clear logic. I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman because he must be feeling wretched today, unless of course he has been thoroughly sedated by the sledgehammer that the Prime Minister is using to drag his allegiance back into line. Today, we have had the benefit of speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), not to mention that of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who was clearly very upset at having fought so valiantly but having to come into line under such a draconian threat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead paid tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I associate myself with that tribute. Indeed, I pay tribute to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The manner in which you patiently conducted the protracted Committee proceedings was an example to everyone who has occupied your office. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank you for that.

701
I do not want to rehearse the arguments that I made yesterday, but I draw attention to one that was partly answered by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). I referred to European transnationals being allowed to create a climate in this country that would enable them to deliver to their work force conditions which were below the European requirement. The right hon. Member for Horsham simply denied it.
I suggested yesterday that ICI would never countenance that, because it provided for its staff to an extent that far exceeded European requirements. I know that that is true; I have direct experience. I was surprised when the Minister prayed in aid what Sir Denys Henderson had said. I could not accept it yesterday; I am afraid that I must accept it today. I spent some of my time behind the Chair talking to Sir Denys at some length, and put to him some of the points that I made yesterday. Conservative Members seem to think that funny; I do not. The anxiety felt by ICI's work force is now being transmitted to the head of the company.
Sir Denys said to me, "Frank, we did not want to be pressed into a jelly mould of German making. You know that our pay and conditions, and the protective regulations introduced under our joint consultative procedure, are far better than those operating elsewhere in Europe." Of course I knew that as I have said, I have direct experience in this regard. But that is not the point. The point is that ICI's work force will see allegiance to a declaration accepting inferior standards in only one way: they will see it as an intention to move towards such standards.
I suggested to Sir Denys that such firms as ICI might run foul of the European anti-dumping laws. "Which anti-dumping laws?" he asked. I had to tell him of my numerous trips to Brussels and Strasbourg to plead for inward investment in my constituency by foreign firms that might be in danger of undercutting European producers. We had to secure quotas to ensure that our home-based industries were not threatened. Sir Denys was surprised at what I told him.
1 also told Sir Denys that if we did not adopt the social protocol, we would not be able to engage in discussions following international debate at a later stage. "Yes, that is a risk," he said, in a manner that suggested that he had not thought of that before.
Far from fearing a jelly mould of German making, Sir Denys Henderson should fear a jelly mould of the Prime Minister's making. He told me, "When I discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, I did not realise that I would be quoted in the House."
Dr. Reid: That is very interesting.
Mr. Cook: Indeed it is. But Sir Denys knew full well that he would be quoted today.
Representing the House on the North Atlantic Assembly, I am privileged to meet delegates from other Parliaments throughout the NATO countries, both socially and formally. What started four or five years ago as a joke among the Dutch, Germans, French and Danes —the joke being that Great Britain was not so bloody great any more—has ceased to be a joke, right across the political spectrum. No one laughs any more.
Discussing the social chapter under a confidence motion tabled by a discredited Prime Minister does this country no credit; indeed, it devalues it even further
2.58 pm
Sir Edward Heath: As we move towards the end of the debate and the history of the Maastricht treaty in the House, I should like to concentrate the mind of the House on one point. Before doing that, I wish to say that, in taking this action, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has acted with complete honesty and great integrity. What he has done is right. What is more, he has acted speedily and has put the whole situation in the hands of the House. For that he is to be loudly and widely commended.
Some Opposition Members honestly and understandably claim that this situation weakens the Prime Minister. After the Division, which we shall win, his position will he immensely strengthened because people will recognise that he has acted speedily and boldly and has done the right thing.
I said that I wanted to concentrate on one point. I do not propose to enter into the argument about the social chapter because my reservations about it are already widely known and were mentioned in the debate by the Leader of the Opposition. There must be much more study in this country in relation to our colleagues in the Community. I hope that after the debate, and after the Act is put into effect and the treaty ratified, we shall be able to concentrate on that important factor, not purely from the party political point of view of trying to outdo each other, but to get to the basic facts of life, which are essential for our constituents and voters.
I do not propose to deal in great detail with the general question of the Maastricht treaty, because there is now an Act of Parliament: the Bill has received Royal Assent. There is much to be developed from the treaty. I am tempted to deal with many of the issues that have been raised, but I shall try to restrain my interest in them. One of my hon. Friends said that this started as a free trade area. We started the free trade area in 1958 because we were not prepared to go into the Community, and that free trade area failed. Therefore, we decided to apply for membership of the Community.
The Community, rather than the treaties of Rome and Paris, has always been a community and not a free trade area, and any attempt today to turn it into just a free trade area is bound to fail because the other EC members want to retain it as a community. If we are to develop economically, we must have a community structure. That is not to argue by any means that the Community is perfect.
I was somewhat taken aback by the argument of one of my wise hon. Friends that we must not rush. We need make only one comparison, the single market, which was created in just over six years. A large part of that was due to the drive by the European Commission and its President, Jacques Delors, who deserves the highest praise. We have spent six years trying to decide where the fast railway link is to go from the channel tunnel, and we have still not reached a decision on it.
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman did not want it.
Sir Edward Heath: I certainly did not, and nor did my constituents.
I wish that we could rush forward many of the developments that the country needs. There is no reason why, in an ever-changing world, we should blame the

703
Community for adapting as speedily as it can to the new world in which we have to operate. Maastricht will allow us to do that.
We have to maintain our friends inside the Community, but we are not doing that at the moment. That is one of the hard facts that we have to face.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have congratulated the House on the wonderful way that it has spent 18 months dealing with Maastricht. With great respect, those outside do not think that a glorious thing. All the reports today say that people are bemused by what went on last night. People have said that they want democracy, but those in Europe ask whether that is the sort of democracy they want. We must develop Maastricht.
Another point arises from all this. There is obviously an enormous amount to be done to inform people not only about the Maastricht treaty but about the work of the European Community and its Commissioners. There is profound ignorance—
Mr. Skinner: We do not like it.
Sir Edward Heath: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like it, but, thank God, his view is not characteristic of the British people. Once Maastricht is settled, we can devote ourselves, as busily and as energetically as we can, to dealing not only with Maastricht but with all the activities of the Community. That is badly needed by everyone in the country.
1 come now to my major point. I have not dealt in any detail with those two points because they are not the matter at issue in the debate or in the Divisions that are to come. It has been said today that last night showed that there was a complete majority for the social chapter. That was not the case at all. The vote on the social chapter was either decided on a tie or lost by one vote. As is well known, Conservative Members who are completely opposed to it voted in favour of the motion.
Mr. Skinner: What difference does that make to the vote?
Sir Edward Heath: There is a difference, to which I am coming.
We must not mislead ourselves or Europe by saying that, because of the vote, there is a complete majority in the House for the social chapter. People in Europe know perfectly well what the situation was. Today, we face one issue, and one issue only—the survival of the Conservative Government. That is what the vote will be about. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will recognise that that is the issue. It is no longer a question of the social chapter or the treaty itself. The treaty is enacted and will come into force as soon as the House takes the decision about the social chapter.
My right hon. and hon. Friends who have fought this battle all the way through hold their position. They are against the social chapter, and that is what the vote will be about today. How, then, can they possibly cross the Floor and vote in favour of it, thereby helping to defeat their Government? I do not believe that that can happen.
We hear talk about democracy, but it is not democracy if a small group defies and brings to nothing the major
704
decisions taken by the House on Second Reading and again on Third Reading. Those were democratic decisions. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends recognise that.
We hear talk of principles. How can it be in accordance with one's principles to vote with the Opposition in favour of something to which one is, on principle, absolutely opposed? How can that possibly be right? It cannot be sustained for one moment.
The vote today concerns the future of the Conservative Government and of our party, and my right hon. and hon. Friends must support the Prime Minister and the Government. I have been a member of the Conservative party for almost 60 years, through good times and bad times, in government and out of government. I believe profoundly and passionately in it. I do not want it or our Government to be brought to an end by a small minority in our parliamentary party.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that he sets an example. When we negotiated entry to Europe, he was a member of my Government. When we decided to enter, he resigned. That was honourable. When the legislaiton had passed through both Houses and the treaty was signed, I invited him to come back to my Government, and he did so. That, too, was honourable. He had lost the battle and he accepted it. I have always respected him for that. I suggest to him and others of my hon. Friends who have fought the battle that the same course should be pursued on this occasion. They have lost the battle and they should now show that they accept the decision, vote with the Government, support the Prime Minister and support the party. I ask and urge them to do so.
3.11 pm
Mr. John Gunnell: I shall be brief as I want to make only one major point, which I shall illustrate from experience. I have no confidence in the Government and I believe that the mess from which they are trying to extract themselves is a mess of their own creation because of the way that they have chosen to handle the social protocol.
The Government originally chose to treat the social chapter in a way that would gain the support of the nationalists in their party and bring them on stream. That backfired. Now, people are confused about the social chapter and many falsely believe that it will cost jobs. Had the Prime Minister listened to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) when they spoke of the social chapter, he would have realised that an alternative position was available. He could have accepted and supported the social chapter and persuaded the country to recognise that it could be used to benefit employment in Britain.
I shall illustrate that assertion from my experience of 12 years as the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association, an organisation financially supported by Government. Throughout those 12 years I spent a great deal of time working with Conservative Members at the Department of Trade and Industry in an attempt to win Japanese inward investment. Over those years I made many visits to Japan and I dealt with many Japanese companies. I was rewarded by a number of those companies coming to Yorkshire and Humberside, notably Citizen, Pioneer and Koyo Sieko—companies that have

705
created substantial employment. Despite meeting re-presentatives from many Japanese companies over the years, no one has ever asked me about a social contract, the details of the social chapter or the way in which it would affect the way that those companies worked in this country. Time and again, I was asked about Britain's membership of the Community and, knowing that I was a Labour Member of Parliament, about the certainty of our continued membership and therefore the security of those companies' investment in this country. Community membership matters to those companies, not the precise terms of the social chapter.
Those Japanese companies have created for their employees conditions that are vastly superior to those that would be determined by the social chapter. When it comes to health and safety at work, employee information and productivity—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)—Japanese industrialists make clear to their work forces in this country what are their productivity targets and achievements. The three major Japanese companies in Yorkshire and on Humberside all provide proper working conditions and employee information, and they consider health and safety a priority.
To believe that the social chapter would turn away Japanese inward investment is to misunderstand the relationship between a Japanese company and its work force. We may regard that relationship as somewhat paternalistic, but the Japanese insist on effective trade union representation. They demand to deal with only one trade union, but they want conditions spelt out and believe in rewarding their work force. Japanese employers do not make the distinction between management and employees that is to be found in many British companies, and Japanese companies will continue to be successful for that reason.
Mr. Nigel Evans: What does the hon. Gentleman have to say to the companies that say that they could not afford the costs of implementing the social chapter?
Mr. Gunnell: If the Prime Minister took the view that the social chapter was a positive innovation in ensuring proper health and safety and working conditions, and equality of employment for men and women, and was something for which he should strive for the good of the economy, the fear of the social chapter that exists among industrialists would be dispelled. The comments made by Conservative Members sitting below the Gangway and by other right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House should encourage the public to recognise the chapter's positive advantages.
My experience of inward investment goes beyond Japanese companies. The social chapter is not a barrier of any kind to inward investment. The Conservatives went wrong in the way that the Prime Minister chose to use the social chapter issue to unite those on the right of his party. That backfired, and the right hon. Gentleman is left with the difficulties that confront him today.
Courage is needed to accept the social chapter and to ensure that Britain moves forward, to enjoy increased and full employment, and is a country in which there are optimum working and health and safety conditions and equality of employment. The opportunity lost to the
706
Government is represented by the lack of confidence in the way in which they are led and in which they lead the country.
3.19 pm
Mr. George Robertson: Initially, I felt slightly uncomfortable about speaking in this debate in this immensely important position, but I have been able to diagnose the problem: it is, I think, the first time in 10 years that I have spoken in daylight, and that is probably only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has laryngitis.
As many right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have said, this has been a unique debate. The circumstances that have led up to it and the circumstances that provoked it yesterday have all been unique, certainly in my parliamentary lifetime. In many ways, the two debates have lived up to the character and importance of the subject matter.
The debate still arises out of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 and the House's decision that a final vote would be taken on whether this country would opt in to the part of the Maastricht treaty from which the Government had opted us out. It is to be the only opportunity for the House to make that decision. The debate then became about the rights of Parliament and whether the view of the House, as it would have been expressed if the amendment had been carried last night, was, in terms of its strict instructions to the Government and ratification of the treaty on European union, to be carried out and whether the will of the House was to be obeyed or defied by the Government. That was and remains a most important, serious and even fundamental issue.
The Government's implied threat—they got as close to it as they possibly could—that they would have defied the will of the elected House of Commons can now unfortunately be tested only if right hon. and hon Members vote for the Opposition's amendment this afternoon.
It is still the same amendment; it still offers exactly the same opportunities. Some of those who believe in parliamentary sovereignty and campaigned against the Maastricht treaty have done so only on the basis of a belief in, and what they call a cherishing of, parliamentary sovereignty. They should perhaps take this opportunity to see whether the leadership of their party believes in parliamentary sovereignty as much as they and the British people do.
The debate has gone beyond all that and is now an issue of confidence in the Government. If the Government lose this afternoon, the Prime Minister says that the Queen will be asked to dissolve Parliament and call an election. Let me tell the Prime Minister, or his surrogates as he is absent, that I can say with some force that millions and millions of people who are listening to and watching our debate will be of one mind and will have one message for the Conservative party: let us have an election; vote for an election. Of course, the Government's claim is only a ploy, a dangerous, over-the-top, desperate ploy to push through a policy when the Prime Minister has lost the argument, lost the case, lost his majority, lost authority and now, visibly, lost his nerve too. One of the elements of this

707
unique set of debates has been the sight of scrambling contenders for a throne that is already seen to be grotesquely unsafe.
The serious question with which the Prime Minister must deal, because he did not do so in his two speeches, is what precisely he is telling his party and the country. What are these confused signals supposed to mean?
"I am the greatest Euro-sceptic of all"
said the Prime Minister to the Tory party conference, yet he is the man who is
"at the heart of Europe".
Those who are still sceptical and harbour doubts—I know that they are in the Chamber this afternoon—should read carefully the words of the Prime Minister yesterday in praise of Europe, of a deepening of Europe and of being a part of Europe, and then wonder what they will be voting for and what the Prime Minister's victory will be deployed as when he achieves the result that, specuation has it, he will achieve.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the only Minister who said, "We will never sign the social chapter." He was dismissed. Who knows whether he was dismissed for saying that? The Foreign Secretary has not said it. We invited him to say exactly that in numerous debates, but at no stage would he put his authority behind such a statement.
There is one lesson that those who are experts on the railways will give to the Prime Minister, a lesson that would have come well from the former Member of Parliament for Christchurch, Mr. Robert Adley: if we give mixed signals, the train can come off the track. That is precisely the danger and the problem that faced the Prime Minister.
Some of us wondered why the Foreign Secretary did not speak in last night's debate. There was a mystery there. The Foreign Secretary is a man who writes mystery books as a reserve second profession, guarding against the prospect of retirement or dismissal from the Cabinet. We thought that because the names "Hurd" and "Hunt" are similar, a word processor error had led to the Secretary of State for Employment winding up last night's debate.
Then we thought—this was extremely generous of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland—that the reason might be that the Foreign Secretary was a man of honour. In the debate on 22 April he said
"We have no difficulty in accepting the challenge with which the proposers of new clause 74 present us. It is reasonable that the House should want the opportunity to vote on the principle of the social protocol. New clause 74, which we are debating today, offers such an opportunity." —[official Report, 22 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 548–49.]
We had some expectation that honour would triumph and that, as the only Minister who had been willing to say that he would obey the will of Parliament, he had perhaps disqualified himself, but I fear that now we know the truth. The senior fireman has been deployed because the Government knew all along that they would lose yesterday, so he had to be kept in reserve.
In the course of the Foreign Secretary's other occupation, he occasionally allows his inner feelings to be revealed. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Those inner feelings are of considerable importance. In his last book — [Interruption.] I ask the House to listen carefully—the Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.] We can tell a lot about
708
the Conservatives and how uncomfortable they are because of the situation in which they find themselves. [Interruption.] They should listen. In his last novel "The Palace of Enchantment" the Foreign Secretary described the career of a disillusioned Foreign Office Minister who had fallen out with his Prime Minister, his wife and his constituents. The Minister went to Africa. "Edward abstracted himself", the book says. It adds:
"He had a speech typed fair in front of him, produced by Sally in a neat folder from the depths of her despatch case … He put nothing of himself into it."
[Interruption.] They do not want to listen. The author went on:
"A hopeless little fraud of a speech, but all that was possible on the present policy. Sir Reginald Anson had been right in saying it was not an occasion for a minister."
We now know why the Government deployed the Foreign Secretary—the chief salesman of the unacceptable—to try to tidy up the mess that was created behind him.
This debate is still about the social chapter. The Prime Minister devoted a substantial chunk of his speech to the issue of the social chapter, little daring to trespass on the other record of the Government that might be on trial in the debate. The social chapter, to many hon. Members and to many outside the House, is the defining difference between the political parties represented in the House—an attitude that says, "We shall compete at the cheapest, lowest quality end of any market and not at the high-quality, high-price end, on which all of our competitors in western Europe have built their prosperity." The vote is not just about confidence in the Government; it is about confidence in the attitude of a Government.
Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman should understand that Conservative Members care every bit as much as he does about investing in the quality and future of our labour force, which is why we have made such a priority of the expansion of further and higher education. Will he explain why the Labour party wants to transfer responsibility for social and employment policy from the Government to Brussels? Is it because, whatever veneer of reform may be applied to the Labour party, he and his hon. Friends despair of its ever being returned to Government?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman must answer this: why do the Germans, who have a right-wing Government, and the French, who now have a right-wing Government, still believe that it is important to have a level playing field not only for business but for people? Perhaps if the Government had invested in people, education, training and higher education in the past 14 years, we would not be sitting here looking at others' record of success compared with our miserable record of failure.
I remind the House that the vote on the social chapter was not offered willingly. The debate was not offered to the House by a democrat Prime Minister who wants to ensure that the House endorses the centre point of the triumph of diplomacy for which he was responsible. No, the vote was squeezed out of a reluctant Government who, throughout the ratification process, have dodged any vote on the social chapter and any opportunity that would allow the House to make a decision on that in which the Prime Minister, and perhaps occasionally the Foreign Secretary, believes.
The debate was conceded under duress, but the Government. who did not want a vote, and who would have avoided a vote, still tell us that this is an

709
inconvenience to Parliament. They had the effrontery to tell the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) yesterday that by voting against a motion that endorsed the Government's policy on the opt out he was, and we all were, voting against ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Foreign Secretary told us that he welcomed the challenge and the opportunity of the vote, and he must bear the burden of responsibility for the fact that he was able to get a majority for his policy only by a squalid deal with some political parties on the Opposition side of the House that chose to support him yesterday evening. Eventually, history will tell us what the deal was that persuaded the Ulster Unionist party to move across the House, and history will judge those who participated in it on both sides, because I am sure that there are still many chickens to come home to roost.
That procedure was only the culmination of a long process of dithering during the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. There was the opt out, way back in December 1991, when even the Prime Minister's political friends among the Christian Democratic Heads of Government were critical. In the few days after the Maastricht treaty was signed, Mr. Wilfried Martens, the head of the Christian Democratic Heads of Government, said that he specifically criticised Mr. John Major for having
"taken a negative position at Maastricht concerning EUROPEAN political union, and more particularly concerning the social charter".
The chairman of the Conservative party wrote to the husband of one of my hon. Friends to canvass for funds for the Conservative party. The letter stated:
"Britain's place in the world is now safeguarded. The key negotiations in Europe and beyond are being carried out by a proven and admired team."
The punchline, presumably designed to deliver the cheque, stated:
"British interests are in safe hands."
We then had the paving debate. I have a certain sense of deja vu now—the paving debate involved a completely unnecessary motion which was originally to be a motion of confidence, then it was not, then it was, then it was not, and ultimately it was deemed to be a motion of confidence. In Committee, the Bill was under the custodianship of a Minister who had resigned before discussions on it began in the House, presumably to stop us demanding his resignation every time he blundered—there were plenty of occasions when we could and should have done so. The process has involved defeats, surrenders and retreats—all followed by today's debate and last night's debacle. We now have an Act of Parliament on the statute book, two thirds of which is written by the Labour party, and all the better for it as it strengthens it.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that the public have not understood the procedures that we have deployed. The Labour party set out with two objectives: to ensure that an important treaty was given appropriate coverage and detailed scrutiny in the House of Commons and secondly, to obtain the social chapter for the people of Britain. The Conservative party cannot continue to wriggle away from its responsibilities. They are alone in Europe as the only political party, other than the French National Front and the neo-nazi Republican party in Germany, to oppose the social chapter.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not give way.
I was responsible for coining the expression, ticking bomb. When I did so nobody could have contemplated that the bomb would go off and leave egg all over the faces of Her Majesty's Government. The Government may well win today because of the threats that have been made. No greater threat can be made than that of collective mass suicide and the withdrawal of the Whip from individual Conservative Members. But those Conservative Members who still have their doubts will still have to live with their consciences when the vote is interpreted tomorrow as a vote for the Prime Minister's European policy. Those hon. Members sitting below the Gangway and slumbering away at the end of our great debate who have been in favour of the social chapter all along, will also have to live with their consciences if they vote against the Labour amendment which presents the only opportunity in the near future for the people of this country to obtain the social chapter.
I hope that there are still those who have sufficient qualms about what they are being asked to do, sufficient spirit and principle and sufficient of the bravery shown by so many hon. Members last night, to stand up for what they believe.
We care deeply for our country and that is why we feel such despair and such disappointment when we see how the Government and the Prime Minister do their business in Europe. The Prime Minister acknowledged that yesterday among his many contradictory signals. It is remarkable that, as the winding-up speeches take place in a confidence debate, the Prime Minister is still not in his place. One wonders whether he is still trying to stitch together yet another deal to save his skin at the end of this afternoon. It is not only wrong, but a discourtesy to the House that he is not here at this point.
In Europe where we live, where we work, where we trade, where we bargain, where we buy and where we sell, we must have a Government who represent the British people. Whether one likes Europe or hates it—there are many on both sides of the argument here—it is where we shall thrive or perish as an economy and as a proud nation. To render us powerless and marginalised has been the hallmark of this Conservative Government, who are always suspected and who are only grudgingly accepted as a partner. Government policy satisfies neither those who hate the Community nor those who love the European neighbourhood in which we are forced to live.
We have ambitions for our country and for its people. We want them to walk tall again in our country in a prosperous Europe. We are confident about Britain's place and Britain's case. We do not share the Tories' miserable lack of confidence. They predicate every negotiation with failure, and every initiative with no chance of amendment, and they see every measure as a threat to the British way of life.
We want our country to lead in Europe and not constantly to lag in the rear. We want to see our country initiating, not preventing, building, not wrecking, and setting the agenda in Europe, not kicking over the tables. We want this country to set the pace for co-operation in Europe. We want our country to get the best of Europe. We are ambitious for Britain and for Britain in Europe.

711
We invite all Conservative Members, wherever they are, who share that vision and that ambition to join us in the Division Lobby this afternoon.
3.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Before he started on his rather lengthy peroration, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made some remarks about the winding-up speech last night. It is not entirely bizarre that a debate on employment law and practice should be wound up by the Secretary of State for Employment.
This is the last speech—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is the last speech in the last debate on the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was fairly sure of applause for that proposition at least. After months of negotiation and months of debate, the discussion is coming to a close.
I was a little surprised, after this long exercise in parliamentary democracy, to hear the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talk about the death of democracy. At the end of the day, it is not the Queen, not the Government, not the House of Lords, not Mr. Delors and not the electorate in France or in Denmark who have decided this matter on behalf of this country. It is the House of Commons. We have done the job that we have been sent here by our constituents to do, and I do not think that we should be ashamed of that fact.
At last, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the treaty has been passed. It has been signed by the Queen and is part of the law, subject to section 7, which it contained. Last night, the House did not manage to conclude that matter. Once again, by a majority —although only a majority of one—the House refused to endorse the social chapter. The minority included many who disapprove of the social chapter. The Prime Minister and the Government decided that we should not let this matter drift through the summer recess. We decided that we needed to ask the House to resolve it today and that not only the authority of the Government but the reputation of Parliament depended on our doing that.
The basic political difficulty has remained the same throughout. It was evident on Second Reading and it was evident yesterday. Yesterday's debate showed a strong majority in favour of the treaty, as has every major vote, and reflected the Labour party's consistent efforts to force through the social chapter. The Opposition want a socialist Europe and, when push comes to shove, the socialism is more important than the Europe. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have disliked the treaty so much that they have been prepared to back the social chapter in the hope that, by doing so, they could defeat the treaty. That hope has gradually faded. It shrivelled yesterday and it is dead today. I shall return to that just before I conclude.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Foriegn Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman overran his time and did not give way. [HoN. MEMBERS: "He did.11 am sorry; in that case, I give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. Dalyell: What serious answer does the Foreign Secretary give to the question posed first by the Leader of
712
the Opposition and then by a number of the rest of us? Why, if we need to be "in the same room"—to use my right hon. and learned Friend's phrase—on the rest of European policy, should we suffer by being out of that room and not on the inside track in relation to the social chapter?
Mr. Hurd: That was precisely the point to which I was about to come. The comments of the Leader of the Opposition were echoed, as so often, by the leader of the Liberal Democrats. The Leader of the Opposition made the point that the hon. Gentleman has just summarised, but he misrepresented our position. We believe that we should be at the heart of the argument in Europe on those matters that the Community needs to discuss and to decide. The Leader of the Opposition implied that that doctrine should be extended and that every domestic matter should be discussed and decided by the Community. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. We believe—and this is the difference between us—that conditions of work, firm by firm and industry by industry, are best decided in this country, and by employers and employees according to their circumstances, and not laid down, perhaps by qualified majority voting, in Brussels, as would happen under the social chapter. That is the difference between us, which was analysed in an exceptional speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who gave a very perceptive account of how modern management views these matters. I need not repeat what my hon. Friend said.
Many Opposition Members seem to think that all that counts is to have the same degree of social protection throughout Europe. It does not seem that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has heard of Asia or Japan or the United States. He does not seem to be aware of the growing concern in Europe about the lack of competitiveness in Europe. It is perfectly true that the debate was slow to start, that employers in Europe were slow to latch on to it and that it has been slow to spread—it has not reached the Labour party yet. An intense debate is going on throughout business circles about how to bring to an end the decrease in the competitiveness of Europe. It has certainly reached the European Community and it has certainly reached Mr. Delors.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I listened to a fascinating analysis by Mr. Delors at the last European summit on precisely this matter. We did not agree with his prescriptions. However, the Opposition would benefit greatly from a little session with him on his analysis to learn how, measurement by measurement and statistic by statistic, Europe has been falling behind in competitiveness over recent years.
The Leader of the Opposition needs a little more information about a boomerang. He accused my right hon. Friend of choosing one. A boomerang, properly employed, stuns its target and then returns shrewdly into the hands of its thrower. It is quite a handy weapon, as we see, indeed, today.
The leader of the Liberal Democratic party chided my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for giving two different messages on the same subject. The theme of that, and who said it, simply lead me to say, "Wow." That from a man who, in almost the same speech, advocates both the reinforcement and the withdrawal of our forces in Bosnia. When it is a matter of deciding which naval base should
713
refit Trident, the leader of the Liberal Democrats has a very simple choice: Liberals in Scotland back Rosyth and Liberals in the south-west back Devonport.
When it comes to VAT on fuel, if the leader of the Liberal Democrats is talking to an environmental audience, it is a grotesque anomaly that fuel should not be taxed in this country. Of course, when he is talking to an audience of pensioners, it is a gross wickedness that it should be so taxed.
The leader of the Liberal Democratic party really started the debate in this country on the social chapter by the sheer ferocity of his attacks on the social chapter which, in this Session and in respect of this Bill, he has consistently defended. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has the gifts of a master tailor: he is skilled at measuring and fitting his opinions to his audience. His opinions vary as widely as his audiences and, as his audiences vary a great deal, one can never be absolutely sure of his opinions.
Many excellent speeches have been made in the debate. The position has been summed up very well, particularly by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King), for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). They made the point that the treaty of Maastricht is not at stake in this debate. The question, as it was yesterday, is whether the treaty is ratified with or without a social chapter.
I should like for a moment to return to what has undoubtedly been a fierce tussle within our own party. I follow quite closely the very restrained, self-disciplined remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. The opposition to the treaty, and therefore to the legislation, has been strenuously argued through these months—it seems years—by a stalwart group, basing themselves on their convinced interpretation of Conservative tradition. I have heartily disagreed with them. I have often wished them to go away, go to bed and to get lost. However, I do not doubt that their struggle and arguments will find a remembered place in the annals of parliamentary conflict.
I believe that the argument about ratification will end today in success for the Government's arguments. After today, we must all turn to the future and on this point I particularly endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said. We have, in the House, in our party, in the country and more widely in Europe, to begin to talk together more intelligently about the future. We are willing to do that and willing to listen carefully to the wide range of views within our party and outside.
But I would not like to end this debate without saying warm thanks to my right hon. and hon. Friends who, throughout, have been on the Government's side of the argument. They have been working morning, noon and night to support the Government, to safeguard their and, indeed, my idea of our place in Europe. They might have found that they have gained a little less publicity than the others, but, of course, without their help, we would not have reached this point and we would not have prevailed.
As the talk about the future continues, common ground will begin to emerge. Again, I am talking partly about my own party, but I am talking also about the House as a whole, I am talking about the discussion in Britain as a whole, and I am talking about the discussion in Europe as a whole. The argument is not over, and there will still be those people who hold to what I regard as an
714
old-fashioned view—that the definition of Europe and the success of Europe, is the steady centralisation of Executive and parliamentary power.
I think that the ideas that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sketched again yesterday and which he, I and others have steadily set forward at Maastricht and ever since are gaining ground—a Europe which is steadily enlarged as a Community not as a super-state, which is founded on open trading, which makes a success of our membership, which means that the Community is successful in those spheres where it has to act as a Community if it is to be effective, which makes a success of the concept in the treaty of intergovernmental co-operation, and which makes a reality of subsidiarity.
We have never argued that Maastricht was a perfect treaty. We believe that we won a sufficient quantity of the arguments in the negotiations to make it a good treaty for Britain, as negotiated by my right hon. Friend with the opt out. I believe that on that foundation, on that basis, as we begin to discuss in the party, in the Government, in the House, in the country and in Europe the way in which the Community should evolve in the future, we will find that the arguments that we began to put at Maastricht and before, and which we have put throughout these debates, will continue to prevail.
But there is a wider point for Conservative Members, because, as my right hon. Friend said, what we are talking about is the survival and the future of this Government. We are, I think, at a turning point. Politicians often use that phrase, but it is apt this afternoon. We have an economic recovery under way. It is not even seriously contested now by the Opposition. The good economic news is actually flowing in faster than either my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government as a whole would have expected. What is important and what is new is that we have a reasonably good chance of sustaining that recovery without inflation.
That situation arises after a year which has been extremely rough, with many misfortunes and, no doubt, a share of mistakes. When I say that I believe that this afternoon can be a turning point, I believe that we can put behind us not just the long, necessary but debilitating debate about Maastricht, but that whole year of roughness and misfortune. Because of the coming together of this debate on Maastricht and the economic news, we can go away for the recess with greater confidence than at any time since the previous general election.
The political mood of the country often starts in this House. It takes time to spread outwards, to percolate and to prevail, but I believe that we have a good chance this afternoon, as a result of a successful vote, to change the tone and to make a starting point. I believe that, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have cultivated the land well, despite much rough weather. I believe that we have sown good seed, and that we can now work together to bring in a good harvest.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 339.

Division No. 360]

[3.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Ainger, Nick

Armstrong, Hilary

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Allen, Graham

Ashton, Joe

Alton, David

Austin-Walker, John

715

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Faulds, Andrew

Barnes, Harry

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barron, Kevin

Fisher, Mark

Battle, John

Flynn, Paul

Bayley, Hugh

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Foster, Don (Bath)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Foulkes, George

Bell, Stuart

Fraser, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fyfe, Maria

Bennett, Andrew F.

Galbraith, Sam

Benton, Joe

Galloway, George

Bermingham, Gerald

Gapes, Mike

Berry, Dr. Roger

Garrett, John

Betts. Clive

George, Bruce

Blair, Tony

Gerrard, Neil

Blunkett, David

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Boateng, Paul

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Boyce, Jimmy

Godsiff, Roger

Boyes, Roland

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bradley, Keith

Gordon, Mildred

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Gould, Bryan

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Graham, Thomas

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

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burden, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Byers, Stephen

Grocott, Bruce

Caborn, Richard

Gunnell, John

Callaghan, Jim

Hain, Peter

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hall, Mike

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hanson, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hardy, Peter

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Harman, Ms Harriet

Canavan, Dennis

Harvey, Nick

Cann, Jamie

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Henderson, Doug

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hendron, Dr Joe

Clapham, Michael

Heppell, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hoey, Kate

Clelland, David

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Home Robertson, John

Coffey, Ann

Hood, Jimmy

Cohen, Harry

Hoon, Geoffrey

Connarty, Michael

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Corbett, Robin

Hoyle, Doug

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corston, Ms Jean

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cryer, Bob

Hume, John

Cummings, John

Hutton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

lllsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Ingram, Adam

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Dafis, Cynog

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Dalyell, Tam

Jamieson, David

Darling, Alistair

Janner, Greville

Davidson, Ian

Johnston, Sir Russell

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Denham, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Dewar, Donald

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Dixon, Don

Jowell, Tessa

Dobson, Frank

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Donohoe, Brian H.

Keen, Alan

Dowd, Jim

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Khabra, Piara S.

Eagle, Ms Angela

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Eastham, Ken

Kirkwood, Archy

Enright, Derek

Leighton, Ron

Etherington, Bill

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Lewis, Terry

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Litherland, Robert

Fatchett, Derek

Livingstone, Ken

716

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Randall, Stuart

Llwyd, Elfyn

Raynsford, Nick

Loyden, Eddie

Redmond, Martin

Lynne, Ms Liz

Reid, Dr John

McAllion, John

Rendel, David

McAvoy, Thomas

Richardson, Jo

McCartney, Ian

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Macdonald, Calum

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

McFall, John

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

McGrady, Eddie

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

McKelvey, William

Rogers, Allan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Rooker, Jeff

McLeish, Henry

Rooney, Terry

Maclennan, Robert

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McMaster, Gordon

Rowlands, Ted

McNamara, Kevin

Ruddock, Joan

McWilliam, John

Salmond, Alex

Madden, Max

Sedgemore, Brian

Mahon, Alice

Sheerman, Barry

Mallon, Seamus

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mandelson, Peter

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Marek, Dr John

Short, Clare

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Simpson, Alan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Skinner, Dennis

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Martlew, Eric

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

Maxton, John

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

Meacher, Michael

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Meale, Alan

Snape, Peter

Michael, Alun

Soley, Clive

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Spearing, Nigel

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Spellar, John

Milburn, Alan

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Miller, Andrew

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Steinberg, Gerry

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stevenson, George

Morgan, Rhodri

Stott, Roger

Morley, Elliot

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Straw, Jack

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Tipping, Paddy

Mudie, George

Turner, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Tyler, Paul

Murphy, Paul

Vaz, Keith

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Wallace, James

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Walley, Joan

O'Hara, Edward

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Olner, William

Wareing, Robert N

O'Neill, Martin

Watson, Mike

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Welsh, Andrew

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wicks, Malcolm

Parry, Robert

Wigley, Dafydd

Patchett, Terry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Pickthall, Colin

Wilson, Brian

Pike, Peter L.

Winnick, David

Pope, Greg

Wise, Audrey

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Worthington, Tony

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Wray, Jimmy

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wright, Dr Tony

Prescott, John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Primarolo, Dawn

Purchase, Ken

Tellers for the Ayes:

Quin, Ms Joyce

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

Radice, Giles

Mr. Mr. Jack Thompson

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Atkins, Robert

Aitken, Jonathan

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Alexander, Richard

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Amess, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Ancram, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bates, Michael

Ashby, David

Batiste, Spencer

Aspinwall, Jack

Beggs, Roy

717

Bellingham, Henry

Forman, Nigel

Bendall, Vivian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forth, Eric

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Body, Sir Richard

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Booth, Hartley

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fry, Peter

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gale, Roger

Bowden, Andrew

Gallie, Phil

Bowis, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Brandreth, Gyles

Gamier, Edward

Brazier, Julian

Gill, Christopher

Bright, Graham

Gillan, Cheryl

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gorst, John

Budgen, Nicholas

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butcher, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Butler, Peter

Grylls, Sir Michael

Butterfill, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hague, William

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carttiss, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cash, William

Hanley, Jeremy

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hannam, Sir John

Churchill, Mr

Hargreaves, Andrew

Clappison, James

Harris, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Haselhurst, Alan

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hawkins, Nick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hawksley, Warren

Coe, Sebastian

Hayes, Jerry

Colvin, Michael

Heald, Oliver

Congdon, David

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Conway, Derek

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hendry, Charles

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hicks, Robert

Cormack, Patrick

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Couchman, James

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Cran, James

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Critchley, Julian

Horam, John

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

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

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

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Day, Stephen

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Devlin, Tim

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Dicks, Terry

Hunter, Andrew

Dorrell, Stephen

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jack, Michael

Dover, Den

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Duncan, Alan

Jenkin, Bernard

Duncan-Smith, lain

Jessel, Toby

Dunn, Bob

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dykes, Hugh

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Eggar, Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Elletson, Harold

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Key, Robert

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knapman, Roger

Evennett, David

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Faber, David

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Fabricant, Michael

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

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Knox, Sir David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fishburn, Dudley

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

718

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Legg, Barry

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Leigh, Edward

Sackville, Tom

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lidington, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lord, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Luff, Peter

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shersby, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sims, Roger

MacKay, Andrew

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maclean, David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Madel, David

Soames, Nicholas

Maginnis, Ken

Speed, Sir Keith

Maitland, Lady Olga

Spencer, Sir Derek

Major, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Malone, Gerald

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mans, Keith

Spink, Dr Robert

Marland, Paul

Spring, Richard

Marlow, Tony

Sproat, lain

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Steen, Anthony

Mates, Michael

Stephen, Michael

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stern, Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stewart, Allan

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Streeter, Gary

Merchant, Piers

Sumberg, David

Milligan, Stephen

Sweeney, Walter

Mills, lain

Sykes, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moate, Sir Roger

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Monro, Sir Hector

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Thomason, Roy

Needham, Richard

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Nelson, Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Tracey, Richard

Norris, Steve

Tredinnick, David

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Trend, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Trimble, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Page, Richard

Twinn, Dr Ian

Paice, James

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Patnick, Irvine

Viggers, Peter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Walden, George

Pawsey, James

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Pickles, Eric

Waller, Gary

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Ward, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Powell, William (Corby)

Watts, John

Rathbone, Tim

Wells, Bowen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Whitney, Ray

Richards, Rod

Whittingdale, John

Riddick, Graham

Widdecombe, Ann

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Robathan, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Willetts, David

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Wilshire, David

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Wolfson, Mark

719

Wood, Timothy

Tellers for the Noes:

Yeo, Tim

Mr. David Lightbown and

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Mr. Sydney Chapman

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put: —
The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 299.

Division 361]

[4.12 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Cran, James

Aitken, Jonathan

Critchley, Julian

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Amess, David

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Ancram, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arbuthnot, James

Day, Stephen

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Devlin, Tim

Ashby, David

Dickens, Geoffrey

Aspinwall, Jack

Dicks, Terry

Atkins, Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dover, Den

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Duncan, Alan

Baldry, Tony

Duncan-Smith, lain

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Dunn, Bob

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bates, Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Batiste, Spencer

Eggar, Tim

Beggs, Roy

Elletson, Harold

Bellingham, Henry

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bendall, Vivian

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Body, Sir Richard

Evennett, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Faber, David

Booth, Hartley

Fabricant, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bowden, Andrew

Fishburn, Dudley

Bowis, John

Forman, Nigel

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brandreth, Gyles

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Brazier, Julian

Forth, Eric

Bright, Graham

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

French, Douglas

Budgen, Nicholas

Fry, Peter

Burns, Simon

Gale, Roger

Burt, Alistair

Gallie, Phil

Butcher, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Butler, Peter

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Butterfill, John

Gamier, Edward

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Gill, Christopher

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gillan, Cheryl

Carrington, Matthew

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Carttiss, Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Cash, William

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gorst, John

Churchill, Mr

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Clappison, James

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grylls, Sir Michael

Coe, Sebastian

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Colvin, Michael

Hague, William

Congdon, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Conway, Derek

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hanley, Jeremy

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hannam, Sir John

Cormack, Patrick

Hargreaves, Andrew

Couchman, James

Harris, David

720

Haselhurst, Alan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hawkins, Nick

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hawksley, Warren

Moate, Sir Roger

Hayes, Jerry

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Heald, Oliver

Monro, Sir Hector

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Moss, Malcolm

Hendry, Charles

Needham, Richard

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Hicks, Robert

Neubert, Sir Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Nicholls, Patrick

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Horam, John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Norris, Steve

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

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

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Ottaway, Richard

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Page, Richard

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Paice, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Patnick, Irvine

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hunter, Andrew

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Pawsey, James

Jack, Michael

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Pickles, Eric

Jenkin, Bernard

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jessel, Toby

Porter, David (Waveney)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rathbone, Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Key, Robert

Richards, Rod

Kilfedder, Sir James

Riddick, Graham

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Kirkhope, Timothy

Robathan, Andrew

Knapman, Roger

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Knox, Sir David

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sackville, Tom

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Legg, Barry

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Leigh, Edward

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lidington, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shersby, Michael

Lord, Michael

Sims, Roger

Luff, Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

MacKay, Andrew

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Maclean, David

Soames, Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Speed, Sir Keith

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Spencer, Sir Derek

Madel, David

Spicer, Sir James (w Dorset)

Maginnis, Ken

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Spink, Dr Robert

Major, Rt Hon John

Spring, Richard

Malone, Gerald

Sproat, lain

Mans, Keith

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Marland, Paul

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marlow, Tony

Steen, Anthony

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stephen, Michael

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stern, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stewart, Allan

Mates, Michael

Streeter, Gary

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Sumberg, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Sykes, John

Merchant, Piers

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Milligan. Stephen

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mills, lain

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

721

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Ward, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Waterson, Nigel

Thomason, Roy

Watts, John

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Wells, Bowen

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Whitney, Ray

Thurnham, Peter

Whittingdale, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Widdecombe, Ann

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

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Tracey, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Tredinnick, David

Willetts, David

Trend, Michael

Wilshire, David

Trimble, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Trotter, Neville

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wolfson, Mark

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wood, Timothy

Viggers, Peter

Yeo, Tim

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Walden, George

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Mr. David Lightbown and

Waller, Gary

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cohen, Harry

Adams, Mrs Irene

Connarty, Michael

Ainger, Nick

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Allen, Graham

Corbett, Robin

Alton, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Corston, Ms Jean

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cousins, Jim

Armstrong, Hilary

Cox, Tom

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cryer, Bob

Ashton, Joe

Cummings, John

Austin-Walker, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Barnes, Harry

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Barron, Kevin

Dafis, Cynog

Battle, John

Dalyell, Tarn

Bayley, Hugh

Darling, Alistair

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Davidson, Ian

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bennett, Andrew F.

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

Benton, Joe

Denham, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Dewar, Donald

Berry, Dr. Roger

Dixon, Don

Betts, Clive

Dobson, Frank

Blair, Tony

Donohoe, Brian H.

Blunkett, David

Dowd, Jim

Boateng, Paul

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Boyce, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Boyes, Roland

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bradley, Keith

Eastham, Ken

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Enright, Derek

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Etherington, Bill

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

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Burden, Richard

Fatchett, Derek

Byers, Stephen

Faulds, Andrew

Caborn, Richard

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Callaghan, Jim

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foulkes, George

Canavan, Dennis

Fraser, John

Cann, Jamie

Fyfe, Maria

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Galbraith, Sam

Chisholm, Malcolm

Galloway, George

Clapham, Michael

Gapes, Mike

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Garrett, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

George, Bruce

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Gerrard, Neil

Clelland, David

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Coffey, Ann

Godsiff, Roger

722

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mallon, Seamus

Gordon, Mildred

Mandelson, Peter

Gould, Bryan

Marek, Dr John

Graham, Thomas

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Martlew, Eric

Grocott, Bruce

Maxton, John

Gunnell, John

Meacher, Michael

Hain, Peter

Meale, Alan

Hall, Mike

Michael, Alun

Hanson, David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hardy, Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Milburn, Alan

Harvey, Nick

Miller, Andrew

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)

Henderson, Doug

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hendron, Dr Joe

Morgan, Rhodri

Heppeil, John

Morley, Elliot

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Hinchliffe, David

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hoey, Kate

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Home Robertson, John

Mudie, George

Hood, Jimmy

Mullin, Chris

Hoon, Geoffrey

Murphy, Paul

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)

Hoyle, Doug

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Olner, William

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hume, John

Parry, Robert

Hutton, John

Patchett, Terry

lllsley, Eric

Pendry, Tom

Ingram, Adam

Pickthall, Colin

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Pike, Peter L.

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Pope, Greg

Jamieson, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Janner, Greville

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prescott, John

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Randall, Stuart

Jowell, Tessa

Raynsford, Nick

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Redmond, Martin

Keen, Alan

Reid, Dr John

Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

Rendel, David

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Richardson. Jo

Khabra, Piara S.

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Kirkwood, Archy

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Leighton, Ron

Rogers, Allan

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Rooker, Jeff

Lewis, Terry

Rooney, Terry

Litherland, Robert

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livingstone, Ken

Rowlands, Ted

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ruddock, Joan

Llwyd, Elfyn

Salmond, Alex

Loyden, Eddie

Sedgemore, Brian

Lynne, Ms Liz

Sheerman, Barry

McAllion, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McAvoy, Thomas

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McCartney, Ian

Short, Clare

Macdonald, Calum

Simpson, Alan

McFall, John

Skinner, Dennis

McGrady, Eddie

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McKelvey, William

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

Mackinlay, Andrew

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

McLeish, Henry

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Maclennan, Robert

Snape, Peter

McMaster, Gordon

Soley, Clive

McNamara, Kevin

Spearing, Nigel

McWilliam, John

Spellar, John

Madden, Max

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mahon, Alice

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

723

Steinberg, Gerry

Welsh, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Wicks, Malcolm

Stott, Roger

Wigley, Dafydd

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Straw, Jack

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wilson, Brian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winnick, David

Tipping, Paddy

Wise, Audrey

Turner, Dennis

Worthington, Tony

Tyler, Paul

Wray, Jimmy

Vaz, Keith

Wright, Dr Tony

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wallace, James

Walley, Joan

Tellers for the Noes:

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mr. Jack Thompson and

Wareing, Robert N

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Watson, Mike

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.

Queen Mary's University Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
4.26 pm
Mr. David Mellor: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested that, now that the boil of Maastricht has been lanced, we have the opportunity to look to the future. I am glad to be the first to accept that invitation and to direct the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who has drawn the short straw and must remain a little longer on a Friday afternoon, to the future of London's health service. I do so, conscious of the fact that our brief debate, like most Adjournment debates, has not drawn a large audience. Outside the House, however, many people in the streets of London will be more concerned about the future of London's health services than the future of the Maastricht treaty. The Government have, thank goodness, got the problems of Maastricht out of the way, but it does not mean that there is not a range of other serious issues to be discussed.
I shall make two observations, the first about the future of London's health services and the second specifically about the future of Queen Mary's University hospital in Roehampton in my constituency and, in particular, its burns unit.
As a former Health Minister, I am bound to accept and welcome the fact that there has been a great transformation in the national health service in recent years. In the past decade, the national health service has for the first time become a truly national service in the sense that we now have a pattern of primary and secondary hospital acute care across the nation. It is no longer necessary for significant numbers of people to come to London from outside for treatment, as used to be the case in the old days due to the relatively underdeveloped state of services outside London.
That clearly has implications for London, and conclusions are being drawn. There is little doubt that conclusions have to be drawn about the future of London's health services. Conclusions can be drawn about whether the balance is right between acute care and primary health care. There are certainly far too many elderly GPs with lock-up shops practising in London. It is disgraceful that the British Medical Association has never taken any interest in that issue. The BMA is, of course, a trade union, so the BMA's concern for the patient becomes less obvious at that point.
One is aware of the dilemma that the Government face. I am certainly not one of those, particularly after the responsibilities I held, who would begin to say to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends now charged with one of the most onerous responsibilities in Government that change may not be necessary. However, it is appropriate to try to be wise before rather than after the event about the extent of that change.
There are too many cooks stirring the broth. The Tomlinson report, which in itself was enough of an agenda without anything else, proposed the closure of two household-name London hospitals—Charing Cross hospital and St. Bartholomew's hospital. Following fast and furious on the heels of Tomlinson, there has been a

725
proliferation of reports from something known as the London implementation group. Every week that passes seems to bring a new report, or the threat of a new report.
One of the problems with the great range of advice being offered to the Government is that it tends to run in contradictory directions. The Tomlinson report suggested the effective denuding of Charing Cross hospital's responsibilities. Once the nonsensical proposition of moving the Royal Brompton and Royal Marsden hospitals to the Charing Cross site was rightly knocked out by Ministers, the London implementation group's specialty reviews appeared to wish to move any available portable specialty to Charing Cross hospital.
I do not believe that the Government can afford to have too extensive an agenda on London's health services. Some of the things that the London implementation group is advising Ministers to do would be difficult to achieve, even if this were the most popular Administration ever invented and if every bit of open land in London was being cleared for the purpose of erecting statues to various leading figures in this Administration. Even if this were a popular Administration, some of the so-called experts are setting a challenging agenda for the Government.
In the Lobby just now, a fellow London Member of Parliament who today presented a petition concerning a hospital in his constituency said to me, "It's the Government that's in intensive care at the moment, not the health service." Ministers ought to bear that in mind when making their dispensations. My judgment is that the future of the London health service—[Interruption.] I trust that I am not already boring my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): No—carry on.
Mr. Mellor: If the Whip were to move away from my hon. Friend and they ceased their conversation, it would be much easier to deal with this matter. If my hon. Friend is going through some of the experiences that I went through when I was a Minister in the Department of Health, he might find some of this profitable.
There is no understanding among the public of the real challenge that faces those who run the health service. Experts may say that London is over-bedded, but that is not the view of the public at large. If one goes to Bart's, as I did the other day, one does not find empty beds. One finds plenty of work going on there which people are not disposed to regard as being readily portable elsewhere. There being no understanding of the basic evidence, it is fair enough to make the assessment that public confidence in the Government's ability to manage London's health service hangs by a thread—a thread which in my opinion the Government would be wise not to break.
A limited agenda for change, therefore, designed to move London's health service in the right direction but shorn of some of the more extraordinary proposals of the siren voices that have been let loose on these various studies and groups, might be the best advice that I could tender to the Government, as one of their loyal supporters. I have been through the maelstrom of the Department of Health and I know all too well what the public think and how readily the public can become agitated about an issue of this kind.
With the benefit of hindsight—and perhaps with a little more than that—the Government might have been better
726
advised not to let loose quite so many expert committees. This is a classic example of people being given power without responsibility. They have the power to blight great institutions by recommending that they should either be closed or shorn of important responsibilities, with vital services transferred from one institution to the other. That is the power to blight, to cause widespread public unrest and to stimulate professional concern, as doctors and nurses wonder whether they have a future within an institution in which they may have spent a working lifetime.
I certainly should not care to be the Minister who tried to take through the wide repertory of ideas being thrust forward with such frequency by these folk who, above all. do not have the responsibility of maintaining public confidence in the health service while their proposed changes are implemented. That is a classic example of why, far from being the voices of wisdom, so many of these specialist committees' suggestions are siren voices trying to lure the ship on to the rocks.
It is extraordinary that even on matters of which one would expect them to have some sensible grasp they seem to be wanting. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister—I dare say that he is already familiar with it—to the meeting of the Select Committee on Health on 14 July, before which three leading figures from the London implementation group appeared. One of the points that emerged was this, and I quote from a note that was made of the meeting:
"it was acknowledged that the Tomlinson report and the speciality reviews had not considered in any depth the financial implications of their recommendations."
That seems a perfect piece of nonsense. How on earth, when the whole raison d'être of the exercise is fitting patient care to the principles of affordability, can a group of people be charged with that responsibility when they acknowledge that Tomlinson had not considered in any depth the financial implications and nor had the speciality reviews?
Having made that point, I turn to the issue of Queen Mary's University hospital. It is a popular hospital. A survey in The Independent ranked it as one of the 10 most popular hospitals in the country. It is highly regarded in our community and it has a partcular reputation for dealing with trauma. It has the largest, and perhaps the only, burns unit in London—certainly in an area with a London postal code. Its advanced plastic surgery unit is a legacy of the war years when plastic surgery was performed on those who were horribly disfigured in service in the Royal Air Force. Since the first world war, it has been the nation's foremost centre for dealing with artificial limbs. Indeed, Douglas Bader and victims of tragedies in the Falklands war or IRA bombs have all been treated there. Sir Ranulph Fiennes is a strong supporter of the hospital, which does not lack friends—another material point for the political consideration of this matter—and when he had to have a couple of toes amputated following his historic walk across Antarctica, he had the operation performed at Queen's Mary.
The burns unit was opened in 1985 at a cost of just over £3 million: I know, because I lobbied hard that it should be. Eight years on, the geniuses that the Department has asked to advise it suggest that it should be shut and that two others—one in Tooting and one in Guildford—should be opened. That leads one to scratch one's head and say, "But Queen Mary's University hospital has just been made

727
a trust hospital"—and I am grateful to the Department for doing that, in the teeth of opposition from the regional health authority.
The unit is extremely successful. I have supplied my hon. Friend the Minister with the facts about its workload, so I shall not weary him by repeating them. Suffice it to say that the workload has increased 10 per cent. in the financial year. It is a popular and successful unit which treats a significant number of people from overseas who have the worst burns imaginable. I defy anyone to visit a more haunting place than a burns unit containing patients who have suffered extreme burns. It requires particular dedication to care for them. Why on earth does the implementation group propose closing a unit which is eight years old and cost more than £3 million, and to establish two in its place? If the aim is to produce value for money, no one outside that small circle would believe that such a proposal is credible. The logic of the lunatic asylum is being brought to bear.
It is not a Conservative approach to life to decide that a unit that is growing and has existed as part of an institution for many years can be uprooted, moved, root and branch, and planted elsewhere without losing something. The fact that the unit will be replaced with another unit is not at issue. What matters is the unit's long history in the context of a hospital with an international reputation for treating serious trauma of all sorts. The unit passes all the tests that are set on the need to integrate a specialist unit into the range of other services that are sometimes needed. It is only on the renal unit test that Queen Mary's does not pass muster—I think that four patients—no more—in the past decade have had to be moved out of the burns unit for specialist renal work.
If, on its own merits, there is no reason why the burns unit should be moved, we must ask whether there is a hidden agenda—a thought which is exercising a number of my parliamentary colleagues in London. It is thought that some other motive lies behind the proposal involving the hit list of hospitals to be closed, that perhaps those charged at official level and so-called expert level have decided who shall be the quick and who shall be the dead. If there is no logic in the proposal to move the burns unit of Queen Mary's University hospital away from that hospital, there must be another reason.
There is only one reason for doing so apart from sheer perversity—which cannot be ruled out, but is unlikely—or professional jealousy. The reason is that it is thought inappropriate for a regional speciality to be continued in a hospital which may not have a future. The thinking is that perhaps Queen Mary's University hospital has had its time. Applying the logic of the proposal, it seems that that may be the reason.
I totally exonerate my hon. Friend the Minister of any blame—the committees have been established and are responsible for what they say—but the proposal cannot be justified on its own merits and it is deeply controversial and unacceptable to the public. Other hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who, as a Minister, cannot take part in this debate—are extremely concerned. As the subject involves a recommendation to the Government rather (Ilan from the Government, however, it is not bound by collective responsibility and I have my hon. Friend's
728
authority to say how concerned he is. A number of other hon. Members whose constituents have been treated at the unit are equally worried.
I do not envy my hon. Friend the Minister the task of trying to steer London's health services safely through the shoals which lie ahead. In view of the problems that exist in a wide context and the problems that we know exist with key London health services such as the ambulance service, which are still a long way from being got right, I urge on my hon. Friend the need to confine changes that will cause public uproar in relation to the closure of valued units and the closure of whole valued institutions to the bare minimum necessary to reshape our health services. I urge my hon. Friend to have confidence in the trusts that have been created. The Queen Mary's trust is not asking for no change—it is ready for change and is already thinking about a strategy that will involve change—but there is all the difference in the world between evolutionary change and change imposed by the arbitrary will of committees such as the specialty review.
Although I do not expect my hon. Friend to repudiate the proposal today, I think it only fair to tell him how I feel so that when, as I hope, in the autumn the Department returns to the topic, it will reassure some of us that it understands the sensitivity of the matter. I hope that it will have an agenda far smaller and across a far narrower canvas than the agenda that some of its experts, who carry no responsibility for the consequences, wish to impose upon it.
4.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) on raising this important topic which is clearly of enormous importance to his constituents. The hospital in question is well loved and respected. Many of my right hon. and learned Friend's constituents and people living in south-west London and beyond have no doubt been treated at Queen Mary's. My right hon. and learned Friend has given us a flavour of the hospital's long experience and of the respect in which it is held.
My right hon. and learned Friend knows, because he is a former Health Minister, that many reports have been published over the years about the need for change in the provision of acute services in London. There have been more than a dozen; Tomlinson is just the latest and its birth was accelerated by the fact that we have separated the provider from the purchaser. We expect the various units to live within budgets, to budget carefully, and to project carefully their future work load and expenditure of income. Within that context, we shall see changes. We want to ensure that they are made in an organised manner.
The Tomlinson report, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, like many previous reports, has suggested that London is likely to be over-bedded in future in terms of acute services. We shall see a transfer which we shall have to push hard. We shall have to make some positive changes towards primary care which will affect many hospitals in London.
My right hon. and learned Friend also knows that the Tomlinson report and the Government's response to it set in hand six independent specialty reviews. One was to do with burns and plastic surgery, and one of the hospitals that was involved in the review as a provider of those

729
services was Queen Mary's. The London implementation group, which is the body set up by the Secretary of State to specialise, to go into great depth on the whole question and to give her advice about the decisions that she should take—later this year, we hope—was charged with reporting on acute hospital provision in south-west London.
The regional health authority has, therefore, set up a south-west London hospitals review. That is all quite clear. I do not think that it quite merits the description that my right hon. and learned Friend gave it. He did me the courtesy of giving me some idea of what he would say through the medium of the early editions of the Evening Standard.
Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend's office was advised by those at Queen Mary's of the point that I was going to make, and I invited my hon. Friend to telephone me before 10 am, which he failed to do. My hon. Friend would do well to deal with the substance of the matter rather than making silly points.
Mr. Sackville: My right hon. and learned Friend should not take it too personally. He has made some fairly critical remarks about the review group, both in his speech and in the local newspaper. I remind him that three eminent consultants—for example, Mr. Philip Sykes, the consultant plastic surgeon at St. Lawrence's hospital in Chepstow—a senior nurse, Mrs. Driver from Leicester, and others have given their time to advise impartially on how they see the future for plastics and burns in south-west London.
I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that there is no sub-agenda. The group is merely saying what it believes will be the demand in the future and how that demand can best be met. The members of the group have decided that, in their opinion, there should be a split, because quite a large number of the patients come to Queen Mary's from beyond the M25. That is their opinion; it is advice which they are offering the Secretary of State. I cannot debate with my right hon. and learned Friend the details of that—indeed, I am glad to say that he has not invited me to do so. That is just one factor in the decisions that will have to be made later.
My right hon. and learned Friend talked about public confidence. The changes that have to be made iire extremely worrying for staff, patients and others. We must make any changes that we have to make in as calm and organised a way as possible. Clearly, Queen Mary's has great qualities, and they will all be taken into account. My right hon. and learned Friend must remember, however, that in all these matters, the patient and patient services are what matter.
Loyalty tends to be to buildings and institutions—that is the same everwhere—rather than to the services that are provided in them. Sometimes, painful decisions have to be made. I remind the House that that is true all over the country. In all the great conurbations, we find that we
730
probably have too many buildings, too many acute beds and a very expensive health service that will probably have to be changed so that we can deliver it more efficiently. We know that demand will grow and we will have to make sure that we achieve the greatest efficiency. People in London must remember that there is life outside the M25. There are enormous problems—
Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is in danger of persuading me that, coming from Stockport, he is unaware that there is life within the M25. He had better not be too insouciant about this issue.
Mr. Sackville: It is Bolton, not Stockport. The problems that afflict Newcastle, Birmingham, Manchester and all the great conurbations are the same, even if in London they are perhaps more intense. Difficult decisions have to be made everywhere. If we do not face up to the sort of decisions that have to be taken in London, because it is the capital or because of the influence of particular consultants or the national media or whatever, we are letting down the NHS employees around the country and patients who may feel—there is evidence to back this up —that, until now, they have been subsidising services in London.
Those are the arguments that lead up to the Tomlinson report and those are the kinds of decisions that we have to make. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will remember that.
There are always powerful arguments to be made against the closure of any well-loved hospital or of any health services. They can be made in more or less emotional ways. They can be made by pointing to quality of services, to the venerability of services or whatever. But we must face the fact that changes will have to be made.
I will not try to prejudge this issue. I will only say to my right hon. and learned Friend that what he has said this afternoon will have been heard. Everything that he has said will be taken into account in any decisions that will be made later this year—as will a petition which I understand is being organised from Queen Mary's, and all the other factors, including the specialty review.
There is no hidden sub-agenda in any recommendations that have been made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about Queen Mary's. Decisions have to be made based on what will, over the next half century, be the best way to deliver services for everyone in south-west London taking into account the effects that those decisions have on services for people who live further out and who now have to come into London and may not feel that that is the future for them.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend once more on raising this subject today and I have no doubt that what he has said will be heard and will influence the debate very strongly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Five o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Knutsford Crown Court
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give Mr. Ray Veal the opportunity to tender for the cleaning and caretaking facilities at Knutsford Crown court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department to employ caretakers for court buildings. In accordance with Government policy of securing value for money, cleaning contracts are awarded by competitive tender and the contract for Knutsford has already been let.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement concerning the compulsory redundancy of Mr. Ray Veal, the court keeper at Knutsford Crown court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Mr. Ray Veal is an employee of Cheshire county council and his redundancy is a direct result of the county council's decision to sell Sessions house to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Negotiations with Cheshire county council for the freehold purchase of Sessions house proceeded on the basis of full vacant possession and it was clearly 'understood that Cheshire county council would identify suitable alternative accommodation for Mr. and Mrs. Veal. Further, the Lord Chancellor's Department made it clear to Cheshire county council that it would not be able to use the services of Mr. Veal as a caretaker. However, in an attempt to be helpful to both the county council and Mr. and Mrs. Veal, the Government property lawyers have been instructed to investigate and conclude an appropriate occupancy agreement to enable Mr. and Mrs. Veal to remain in their present accommodation.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for legal aid have been made by solicitors acting on behalf of clients suffering from tranquilliser addiction and seeking to sue drug companies in the past 10 years; how much money has been paid to solicitors' firms over that period; how many such cases have been concluded in a court of law; and how many legal aid certificates have been issued, cases begun and legal aid subsequently withdrawn.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The only significant tranquilliser action to have received funding from the Legal Aid Board is the current Benzodiazepine action, for which 17,000 legal aid applications were made. These applications cover actions against the companies manufacturing the drugs together with the authorities prescribing them. The generic legal aid expenditure on all the Benzodiazepine drugs in 400
  the litigation amounts to approximately £3 million, though further, as yet unquantified, costs have also been incurred. In view of the numbers of individual cases involved, these costs may be considerable. None of the Benzodiazepine cases has yet been concluded. A total of 13,168 legal aid certificates were issued. The position on these is constantly changing, but at present more than 7,000 certificates have been discharged and several hundred are awaiting decisions on appeal. There have also been approximately 20 tranquilliser cases where legal aid was granted, but which were not part of the Benzodiazepine litigation. These have all been discharged and none of the cases was concluded in court.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Lord Chancellor's Department; to whom these bodies are responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open Government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Of the executive NDPBs listed in Public Bodies 1992, the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board, which is responsible to the Lord Chancellor, was established to develop competition in the provision of conveyancing services and to supervise the provision of those services by authorised practitioners. In response to a parliamentary question on 13 March the Lord Chancellor announced that, due to a lack of demand to become authorised practitioners, he was postponing implementation of those provisions of the 1990 Act necessary to allow the board to begin the process of authorisation.

  Answers to specific questions:

  (a) No

  (b) Yes

  (c) Yes

  (d) Not applicable

  (e) No. The decision to postpone the authorised practitioner scheme was taken before the board's performance indicators had been finalised.

  (f) Yes. The chairman and the members of the board would be required to declare an interest.

  Legal Aid Board

  The responses for the Legal Aid Board, which is responsible to the Lord Chancellor are as follows:

  (a) No

  (b) Yes

  (c) Yes

  (d) Not applicable

  (e) Yes

  (f) Yes. The board is shortly to publish a statement of its charter standards.

  Before appointing a person to be a member of the board, the Lord Chancellor satisfies himself that the individual's financial and other interests will not prejudice his or her functions as a member of the board. The Lord Chancellor also from time to time satisfies himself as to the members continuing interests. In addition, a member must declare an interest at any time throughout their tenure

  401
  when a conflict of interest arises. The provisions governing members' interests are covered by schedule 1 of the Legal Aid Act 1988.

TRANSPORT

  Road and Railway Schemes
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average percentage difference in time taken for(a) roads and (b) railways between the initial consultative plan and the finally approved scheme.

  Mr. Freeman
  Road schemes completed in 1992–93 took on average 13·9 years to complete. We are currently looking at ways to reduce this figure and my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.

  Applications for orders for new rail schemes are now governed by the Transport and Works Act, which came into force on 1 January 1993. We have not yet received any applications regarding railway schemes under the provisions of this Act; it is not therefore possible to make comparisons with road schemes. The time scale between receipt of draft orders and approval would depend on the size of the scheme and the degree of controversy surrounding it.

  Computer Consultancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by his Department and agencies since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  Since November 1991, the Department of Transport and its agencies have engaged 55 computer consultancy companies. The tasks on which they were employed range from strategic analysis to systems review. The cost of the commissions is approaching £7 million.

  A550
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the M53/M56 alternative to the A550 improvement scheme was evaluated before or after the public consultation exercise; and if he will publish the results of the evaluation, including projected traffic flows.

  Mr. Key
  We do not believe that a route via the M53 and M56 presents a viable alternative. Although the question of this alternative was considered carefully prior to the preferred route announcement, no detailed evaluation is available.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment will be made of the traffic generated as a result of stages 1 and 2 of the A550 improvement scheme in considering whether to proceed with stage 3.

  Mr. Key
  This scheme is now being progressed in two stages. The technical appraisal for stage 2 (Ledsham to the M53) makes allowance for any additional traffic using the route as a result of the stage 1 improvement to the south.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment was made of the extent to which road usage on the Friday afternoon of a bank holiday weekend 402
  represented typical road usage for the purposes of photographs included in consultation on the A550 road improvement scheme.

  Mr. Key
  The photograph was used as an illustration of congestion that can occur. The A550 improvements have been evaluated against forecast annual average daily traffic flows in the design year 2012.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason a question asking for views on whether a new road was required did not form part of the public consultation for the A550 improvement scheme.

  Mr. Key
  To gauge the level of public support for a major improvement.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide full details of the rail schemes assessed as an alternative to the A550 improvement scheme, including the routes assessed, their cost, and the projected changes in rail traffic associated with each alternative.

  Mr. Freeman
  No rail schemes have been assessed as possible alternatives to the A550 improvement scheme. Rail would not be a practicable option given the alignment of existing track in the area, which does not run in parallel with the A550 to Ledsham and beyond.

  Road Fuel Duties
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reduction in road traffic volumes is expected to result from the increase in road fuel duties announced on 16 March.

  Mr. Key
  The increase in road fuel duties announced on 16 March is aimed at contributing toward the Government's commitment to return overall CO2 emissions from the United Kingdom in the year 2000 to the level recorded in 1990. By 2000, the increase in fuel duties is expected to have reduced road transport emissions of CO2 by about 1.5 million tonnes of carbon (mtC), roughly one-seventh of the required savings. That increase in duties will have a greater effect on fuel consumption (and thus CO2) than on traffic levels. This is because the reduction in traffic is just one of the effects likely to follow from higher fuel prices. We would also expect a variety of improvements in fuel economy to come about—for example, improved driver technique, changes in speed, choice of smaller cars and improvements in vehicle design. Under the minimum duty increases announced, the level of traffic (all motor vehicles) in 2000 would be about 500 bn vehicle km instead of the 510 bn vehicle km forecast using the mid-point of the National Road Traffic Forecasts—a 2 per cent. reduction.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 418, how many passenger miles are expected to transfer from private car to public transport as a result of the public transport initiatives described.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to estimate the number of passenger miles likely to transfer from private car to public transport. In the case of buses, much of the success of the measures depends on action being taken by local authorities.
  403

  Diversions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average diversion in road miles over original routes provided by trunk road bypasses of motorway or express road standard over the past five years and planned for the next five years.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not readily available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  M53
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Hooton spur of the M53, north of junction 5, was built as part of a road scheme linking the M53 to a projected Dee barrage.

  Mr. Key
  The spur at junction 5 of the M53 was constructed in the 1970s for a possible link with the M56 to the west of Ellesmere Port.

  Wirral-North Wales Corridor
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of the public transport schemes currently being assessed for the Wirral-North Wales corridor as part of the public transport initiatives contained in his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 418.

  Mr. Freeman
  Improvements to public transport will in many cases be the responsibility of the operators concerned; but it is open to local authorities to bring forward proposals for public transport improvements in their area. The Government can assist by making resources available to local authorities where appropriate. For example, we have made £6·4 million available to Merseyside PTA and Cheshire county council for railway electrification between Hooton, Chester and Ellesmere Port; £2·2 million to Merseyside PTA in 1993–94 for city challenge schemes some of which are in Wirral; and £300,000 to Wirral borough council in 1993–94 for bus priority measures. Local authorities have been invited to put forward further proposals in their transport policies and programmes.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to publish details of the highway engineering measures his Department is taking to achieve the trunk road share of the national target of reducing road accident casualties by one third by the year 2000.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for copies of the departmental trunk road safety plan to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament, along with copies of the regional safety plans that are separately produced in the Department's regional offices.

  These plans detail the many actions and resources the Department is putting into highway engineering measures to reduce accident casualties on trunk roads. I am pleased to say that these measures are reducing deaths and injuries and are working towards meeting our share of the national target.
  404

  Amesbury-Berwick Down Improvements
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received objecting to(a) the yellow route and (b) the grey route for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down improvement scheme.

  Mr. Norris
  I have received various representations supportng or opposing the yellow route and grey route options for this improvement scheme near Stonehenge. We are now considering responses to the recent public consultation.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what would be the cost of putting the yellow route for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down improvement scheme in a cutting rather than a tunnel.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department did not offer at the recent public consultation an option for a scheme in cutting along the line of the present A303 as we considered such a n option to be unacceptable environmentally, given the importance of Stonehenge. No estimate of cost is available, comparable with those of options offered.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he is giving to the National Trust's request for more information on alternative routes for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down improvement scheme; and if he will make a statement about the effect of his plans of the inalienability of National Trust land involved.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is seeking clarification of what further information the National Trust requires. One main purpose of both the Department's consultation options near Stonehenge is to improve conditions for Stonehenge and its surrounding monuments. The tenure of National Trust land and the terms on which it might be made available are matters for the National Trust.

  Criminal Offences
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criminal offences he has introduced in the last five years under delegated legislation.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total expenditure incurred on the Jubilee line extension project to date; what obstacles now remain before the principal construction works can be started; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Around £180 million. Leaving aside the exit from administration of the Olympia and York Company, before we can give authorisation for construction work to begin the precise terms of the funding agreement between London Underground Limited and London Transport and the parties involved with the financing of Canary wharf must be satisfactorily settled.

  Aircraft Ventilation
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has held with United Kingdom airline operators about the quality of air in ventilation systems during flights;
  405
  (2) what discussions he has held with the Civil Aviation Authority about the quality of cabin air on board British airlines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The European joint aviation authorities' airworthiness standards include requirements for minimum fresh air ventilation flows expressed in terms of fresh air quantity per minute per person. These minimum flows must be provided in the event of a failure in the air supply system; normal flow rates would be appreciably higher. The Civil Aviation Authority sees no reason to review these standards.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the advice he has received from the merchant banker retained by his Department about finance for the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  The independent review of Union Railways' work on the rail link was published in March 1993. We shall make an announcement in due course on the Government's conclusion following the consultation on private sector involvement, taking into account the advice provided by Samuel Montagu.

  DVOIT Swansea
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for representatives of the work force of DVOIT Swansea to meet each of the five bidders in the privatisation process before a final choice has been made by his Department.

  Mr. Key
  Representatives of the DVOIT staff have been offered the opportunity of meeting the prospective purchasers of the agency once a, shortlist has been selected. This stage is likely to be reached in the second half of August.

  Motor Vehicle Licensing Applications
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations govern the number of sub-post offices permitted to conduct motor vehicle licensing applications.

  Mr. Key
  The aim is to provide an across-the-counter service within reasonable travelling distance for motorists with an option to relicense by post if this is more convenient.

  Vehicle licences are issued by 4,000 of the 20,000 post offices in Great Britain. For this service the Driver and Vehicle- Licensing Agency (DVLA)—effectively the taxpayer—pays a substantial sum of money to Post Office Counters Ltd. (POCL). Any increase in the number of licence-issuing post offices would increase the cost of collection without increasing the overall sum paid into the Exchequer.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Offences
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were received into prison department establishments under Immigration Act powers 406
  during (a) 1992 and (b) 1993 to the latest convenient date, by individual prison establishment; what was the average daily population of persons so detained in each of those years; what was the average length of time spent in detention by persons so detained in each of those years; and whether he will give a breakdown by nationality of persons so detained for each of those years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of detainees received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales under the Immigration Act 1971 is given by establishment of initial reception in table 1 for the first half of 1992. Information for receptions for the second half of 1992 and for 1993 is not yet available.

  The average population in 1992, including persons originally received for a criminal offence, was 227. The average for January to May in 1993 is 382. A breakdown of the prison population by nationality is given for June 1992 and May 1993 in table 2.

  The average period of detention for detainees released in the first half of 1992 is provisionally estimated as nearly 12 weeks. No later information for discharges is yet available.

  Table 1

  Receptions of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales: by establishment 1 January to 30 June 1992

  Establishment

  Number of persons1 2

  Remand centres

  Brinsford

  2

  Dorchester

  8

  Exeter

  1

  Feltham

  13

  Glen Parva

  1

  Haslar

  179

  Low Newton

  3

  Moorland

  1

  Local prisons

  Bedford

  3

  Belmarsh

  7

  Birmingham

  55

  Bristol

  8

  Brixton

  4

  Bullingdon

  4

  Canterbury

  14

  Dorchester

  9

  Durham

  2

  Exeter

  12

  Elmley

  1

  Gloucester

  3

  Holloway

  23

  Hull

  6

  Leeds

  13

  Leicester

  15

  Lewis

  8

  Lincoln

  5

  Liverpool

  4

  Norwich

  3

  Pentonville

  158

  Preston

  17

  Pucklechurch

  1

  Shrewsbury

  2

  Winchester

  2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  11

  Closed training prisons

  Full Sutton

  1

  All establishments

  599

  407
  1The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Table 2

  Population of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1992 and 31 May 1993: by nationality

  Nationality

  Number of persons1 2

  30 June 1992

  31 May 1993

  Afghanistan

  —

  1

  Algeria

  8

  15

  Angola

  7

  13

  Argentina

  —

  1

  Ascension Islands

  —

  1

  Australia

  1

  —

  Bangladesh

  5

  13

  Belgium

  —

  1

  Brazil

  —

  1

  Canada

  1

  2

  Cape Verde

  —

  1

  Central African Republic

  —

  2

  Chile

  1

  1

  China

  2

  5

  Colombia

  1

  3

  Congo

  1

  —

  Cyprus

  2

  3

  Egypt

  1

  3

  Ecuador

  —

  1

  France

  3

  6

  Gambia

  1

  1

  Germany

  —

  3

  Ghana

  7

  28

  Guyana

  1

  3

  Hong Kong

  1

  1

  Hungary

  1

  1

  India

  43

  99

  Indonesia

  —

  1

  Irish Republic

  3

  1

  Israel

  2

  2

  Italy

  —

  1

  Ivory Coast

  1

  4

  Iran

  2

  2

  Jamaica

  10

  20

  Jordan

  —

  1

  Kenya

  1

  4

  Lebanon

  6

  2

  Liberia

  3

  5

  Libya

  —

  1

  Malaysia

  1

  1

  Morocco

  3

  3

  Mauritius

  1

  1

  Mexico

  —

  1

  Namibia

  1

  —

  Netherlands

  2

  1

  Nepal

  1

  —

  New Zealand

  —

  1

  Nicaragua

  1

  1

  Niger

  1

  —

  Nigeria

  36

  54

  Pakistan

  12

  14

  Peru

  —

  3

  Philippines

  1

  —

  Poland

  —

  2

  Portugal

  1

  —

  Romania

  —

  9

  Saudi Arabia

  2

  1

  Sierra Leone

  1

  5

  Somalia

  —

  1

  South Africa

  2

  1

  Spain

  —

  1

  Sri Lanka

  1

  2

  St. Lanka

  —

  1

  St. Vincent and Grenadines

  1

  —

  Sudan

  1

  2

  Tanzania

  —

  3

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  —

  Turkey

  9

  24

  408

  Nationality

  Number of persons1 2

  30 June 1992

  31 May 1993

  Uganda

  1

  2

  United States of America

  3

  3

  Vietnam

  1

  —

  Yugoslavia

  1

  1

  Zambia

  1

  1

  Zaire

  25

  17

  Zimbabwe

  —

  1

  Nationality not recorded

  42

  30

  Refusal

  1

  2

  All establishments

  268

  441

  1The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual case would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Doctors (Work Permits)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas doctors have been issued with notices to leave the country; how many of them are waiting for their appeals to be heard; and what are the reasons for asking them to leave.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available.

  Civil Defence Grant Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has any plans to relax the current rules concerning the effect on local authorities' civil defence grant aid allocations of authorities' success in obtaining income from emergency planning activities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Officials are considering ways in which local authorities can retain any such income obtained and a further announcement will be made shortly.

  Probation and Bail Hostels
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the bail hostels and (b) the combined probation and bail hostels in England and Wales at present; how many places there are in each hostel; and how many additional places the Government aims to provide (i) in each of these hostels and (ii) elsewhere by 1995.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently 30 approved bail hostels in England and Wales, as follows:

  Bail hostels in England and Wales in 1993

  Probation Area

  Hostel

  Beds

  Cheshire

  Bunbury House

  22

  Cheshire

  Linden Bank

  22

  Cleveland

  South Bank

  24

  Devon

  Dudley Centre

  22

  Greater Manchester

  Chorlton Hostel

  27

  Gloucestershire

  Ryecroft

  16

  Hampshire

  Dickson House

  28

  Hampshire

  Southampton

  22

  Kent

  Dover Bail

  18

  Lancashire

  Blackburn

  18

  Leicestershire

  Howard House

  20

  409

  Probation Area

  Hostel

  Beds

  London Inner

  Canadian Avenue

  23

  London Inner

  Kelley House

  28

  London Inner

  Tulse Hill

  27

  London Middlesex

  Corfton Road

  20

  London South West

  Kew

  14

  Merseyside

  Merseybank

  28

  North Wales

  Ty Newydd

  12

  Northumbria

  Cuthbert House

  22

  Northumbria

  Pennywell

  22

  Oxfordshire

  Clarks House

  27

  Staffordshire

  Lichfield Road

  20

  West Glamorgan

  Emroch House

  15

  West Midlands

  Marshall House

  22

  West Midlands

  Stonnall Road

  12

  West Midlands

  Sycamore Lodge

  32

  West Midlands

  Welford

  26

  South Yorkshire

  Town Moor

  25

  West Yorkshire

  Howden House

  27

  West Yorkshire

  Walmer Villas

  18

  Beds

  659

  Hostels

  30

  There are currently 84 approved probation/bail hostels in England and Wales as listed below:

  Probation/bail hostels in England and Wales 1993

  Probation Area

  Hostel

  Beds

  Avon

  Ashley House

  20

  Avon

  Brigstocke Road

  29

  Avon

  Bridge House

  15

  Bedfordshire

  Bedford

  25

  Bedfordshire

  Napier Road

  23

  Berkshire

  Elizabeth Fry

  20

  Berkshire

  Manor Lodge

  27

  Berkshire

  St. Leonards

  23

  Berkshire

  Wellesley House

  18

  Buckinghamshire

  Milton Keynes

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough

  26

  Cheshire

  Bewsey Street

  20

  Cleveland

  The Crescent

  25

  Cornwall

  Meneghy House

  18

  Cumbria

  Bowling Green

  24

  Derbyshire

  Burdett Lodge

  25

  Devon

  Lawson House

  20

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  25

  Dorset

  Weston

  27

  Durham

  Fir Tree Grange

  28

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  15

  Essex

  Basildon

  32

  Essex

  Windyridge

  30

  Greater Manchester

  Bradshaw

  27

  Greater Manchester

  Hopwood

  18

  Greater Manchester

  Ascot House

  22

  Greater Manchester

  St. Josephs

  29

  Greater Manchester

  Wilton Place

  29

  Greater Manchester

  Withington Road

  37

  Hampshire

  The Grange

  18

  Hereford and Worcester

  Braley House

  23

  Hertfordshire

  St. Albans

  26

  Humberside

  Queens Road

  19

  Kent

  Fleming House

  23

  Kent

  Hollywood Manor

  30

  Lancashire

  Highfield House

  18

  Lancashire

  Hoole House

  24

  Leicestershire

  Charnwood House

  18

  Leicestershire

  Kirk Lodge

  35

  Lincolnshire

  Wordsworth House

  28

  London Inner

  Bedford/Shenley

  30

  London Inner

  Camden House

  29

  London Inner

  Ellison House

  25

  London Inner

  KPH

  19

  London Inner

  St. Edmunds

  25

  London Inner

  St. Mungo

  25

  London Inner

  St. Vincents

  24

  London Inner

  West Park

  22

  410

  Probation Area

  Hostel

  Beds

  London Middlesex

  Seafield Lodge

  14

  London North East

  Westbourne House

  40

  London South East

  Beckenham Road

  20

  Merseyside

  Adelaide House

  22

  Merseyside

  Canning House

  27

  Merseyside

  Southwood

  23

  North Wales

  Plas-y-wern

  12

  Norfolk

  John Boag House

  29

  Northants

  Bridgewood

  23

  Northants

  Stone House

  24

  Northumbria

  Ozanam House

  27

  Northumbria

  St. Christophers

  22

  Nottinghamshire

  Astral Grove

  15

  Nottinghamshire

  Southwell House

  16

  Nottinghamshire

  Trent House

  22

  Oxfordshire

  Abingdon Road

  22

  South Glamorgan

  Mandeville House

  26

  Somerset

  Glogan House

  16

  Staffordshire

  Wenger House

  42

  Suffolk

  Lightfoot House

  22

  Suffolk

  The Cottage

  18

  Surrey

  St. Catherines

  19

  West Midlands

  Bilston

  15

  West Midlands

  Carpenter House

  16

  West Midlands

  Crowley House

  18

  West Midlands

  Stoke Green

  22

  Warwickshire

  Kenilworth Road

  18

  Warwickshire

  Mclntyre House

  18

  South Yorkshire

  Centre 45

  36

  South Yorkshire

  Norfolk Park

  49

  South Yorkshire

  Rookwood

  37

  West Yorkshire

  Albion Street

  24

  West Yorkshire

  Cardigan House

  23

  West Yorkshire

  Elm Bank

  17

  West Yorkshire

  Ripon House

  17

  West Yorkshire

  St. Johns House

  28

  Beds

  1,993

  Hostels

  84

  The approved hostel expansion programme aims to provide 1,365 additional places between April 1988 and March 1996. Of these, 914 are already on stream and are included in the tables. The remaining places have been provisionally allocated, but until the appropriate properties or sites are identified the precise numbers cannot be determined.

  Sheehy Report
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of the executive summary of the Sheehy report on police responsibilities and rewards have been produced; to whom they have been circulated; and at what total cost.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A total of 170,000 copies of the executive summary of the Sheehy report on police responsibilities and rewards were produced. A copy was circulated by the inquiry to every police officer in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; to the clerk to the police authority for each force in the United Kingdom; and to the organisations and individuals who gave oral evidence to the inquiry. The cost of production and distribution was £25,965.

  Youth Organisations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an independent evaluation into the performance of the Weston Spirit,
  411
  Drive for Youth, Fairbridge and other similar charitable organisations specialising in diverting young people from crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A number of local diversionary projects run by charitable organisations, including Fairbridge, receive Home Office funding. Those projects are therefore subject to monitoring and evaluation.

  Deportees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: The numbers of those deported from the United Kingdom are as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Male

  1,693

  1,968

  2,008

  Female

  470

  601

  568

  The figures include those who made a supervised or voluntary departure having been served with a notice of the intention to deport them, as well as those who were the subject of a deportation order.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for employment what assessment he has made of the net Exchequer flowback of the personal reader service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The most recent assessment of net Exchequer costs for the personal reader service was published in the consultative document "Evaluation of Special Schemes for People with Disabilities: Summary Paper" in November 1990. The figures are shown in the following table:

  Assessment

  Gross costs (1988–89) (£000s)

  387

  Number helped (1988–89)

  472

  Gross cost per person helped (£s)

  820

  Estimated range of costs to Exchequer (£000s)

  370–510

  Estimated range of net costs per person helped (£s)

  700–1,000

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage level of employment of(a) blind people and (b) all disabled people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) asks people of working age if they currently have any health problem or disability which limits the kind of paid work they can do. Estimates based on answers to this question will include people with short-term health problems and disabilities as well as those registered as disabled.

  LFS estimates for winter 1992–93, not seasonally adjusted, show that in Great Britain 38·2 per cent. of working age people with such health problems and disabilities were in employment. Of those who reported that their main health problem was with difficulty in seeing, 45·2 per cent. were in employment.
  412
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which employers take account of the cost of special equipment in deciding whether to employ(a) blind workers or (b) people with other disabilities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An assessment of the extent to which employers take account of the cost of special equipment was published in the consultative document "Evaluation of Special Schemes for people with disabilities: Summary Paper", in November 1990. The paper provided details of employer responses to a question which asked whether they would have taken or kept their disabled employees on, without help from the special schemes for people with disabilities. The question was asked in relation to all disabled people, regardless of disability although one third were classified as totally blind. The following table shows employer responses with reference to the special aids to employment scheme:

  Would you have taken/kept him/her on without help from the scheme?'

  Base—175

  Response

  Per cent.

  Definitely

  75

  Possibly

  16

  No

  9

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average cost of equipment given under the special aids to employment schemes(a)£906 for all recipients and (b)£1,373 for blind workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The average cost of equipment supplied under the special aids to employment scheme is(a) £906 for all recipients and (b) £1,373 for blind workers.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for the personal reader service scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The assistance currently provided by the personal reader service will continue to be available under access to work from April 1994, and will be extended to include support beyond reading.

  Employment Agency
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the main results of the work of the employment service as a next steps agency in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased to announce that the Employment Service achieved excellent results in 1992–93. It placed over 1·42 million unemployed people into jobs, of whom 24 per cent. had been out of work for six months or more. It also exceeded its targets for paying benefit accurately and promptly to those entitled to it. The Chief Executive of the Employment Service has provided my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the annual report and accounts for 1992–93. Copies have been placed in the Library today.
  413

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Football
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what visits have been made by Ministers in his Department since April 1992 to(i) Premier League football grounds and (ii) Football League grounds.

  Mr. Brooke
  Ministers have made official visits to one Premier League and two Football League grounds since April 1992.

  Angling
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heriage what grants from public funds have been made to the sport of angling since April 1991.

  Mr. Brooke
  Most of my Department's funding for sport is made through the Sports Council. In 1991–92 it paid grant of £71,749 to angling bodies, including £20,660 to the National Angling Council which was disbanded at the end of that year. In 1992–93 grant paid by the Sports Council to angling's remaining governing bodies was £46,800.

PRIME MINISTER

  Foreign Heads of State (Visits)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minster whether the itinerary of a foreign head of state on an official visit to the United Kingdom is set by Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: For an official visit to Britain by a foreign head of state the itinerary is agreed between the British Government and the visitor.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Tourism
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department invested in marketing and promoting Northern Ireland as a tourist destination during 1991 and 1992; how much his Department intends to have spent on marketing and promotion by the end of the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Funded by the Government, the Northern Ireland tourist board has spent the following amounts (excluding salary and wages costs) on the marketing and promotion of Northern Ireland as a tourist destination:

  £000's

  1990–91

  2,797

  1991–92

  1,821

  1992–93

  3,515

  1993–94

  3,410

  1 Budget.

  Increased Government funding for tourism has enabled the tourist board to run a major television campaign in parts of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland in addition to its normal marketing activities.
  414
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visitors to Northern Ireland in 1992 stated holiday as their main reason for visiting; and what proportion of the total number of visitors that represented during the year.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1992, 247,200 pure holiday visitors came to Northern Ireland. This represents 20 per cent. of the total visitors.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the target numbers set out in the corporate plan 1992–95 by the Northern Ireland tourist board were achieved in 1992 in respect of(a) visits to friends and relatives, (b) holidays and (c) businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of business visitors to Northern Ireland in 1992 achieved and significantly exceeded the target, with 380,000 visitors as against a target of 336,000. In a difficult year for international tourism and despite achieving a 6 per cent overall increase in visitors, which produced the fourth successive record year for Northern Ireland tourism, the other two targets were not reached.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of tourists visiting Northern Ireland in 1992 also visited the Republic as a component part of their trip; what proportion of those were from(a) EC countries, (b) the United States of America and (c) elsewhere; and what was the average length of stay in both the north and the Republic.

  Mr. Atkins
  An estimated 21 per cent. of the visitors to Northern Ireland in 1992 also visited the Republic of Ireland. The form of the tourist data collected is such that the information requested about origin and length of stay is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure by Northern Ireland residents on(a) leisure day trips and (b) domestic vacations during 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The total expenditure by Northern Ireland residents on domestic vacations in 1992 was £44·63 million. Expenditure on leisure day trips is not collected on a regular basis although experimental surveys are being pursued to assess methodology of collection and the value of such data.

  Strategic Planning Unit
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what work is carried out by the strategic planning unit in the Department of Economic Development.

  Mr. Atkins
  The unit, which includes the Department's economists and statisticians, has responsibilities which include the provision of strategic advice on all aspects of economic development policy, policy evaluation, economic research and the collation and interpretation of statistics.
  415

EDUCATION

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education 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. Boswell
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  Measures operated by the Department to assist small business include encouragement of small firms to tender for its contracts; each contract also includes a requirement to ensure sub-contractors are paid promptly.

  The Department monitors both the number and value of its contracts let to small firms. In the first four months of 1993–94, 43 per cent. of contracts were placed with such firms (28 per cent. by value); the corresponding figures for the previous 12 months are 39 per cent. and 29 per cent.

  Open University (Tuition Fees)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students studying with the Open University have had their tuition fees grant-aided by North Yorkshire county council in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not collected centrally. Under the Education Act 1962, it is entirely for local education authorities to determine how much to spend on discretionary awards and which students to support.

  Elton Report
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement outlining the progress made to date by his Department on implementing the recommendations of the Elton report.

  Mr. Forth
  The report of the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools chaired by Lord Elton was published in March 1989 and copies were sent by the Department to all schools and local education authorities in England. The report contained recommendations not only to the Government, but also to local education authorities, governing bodies, head teachers, teacher training institutions and other bodies. For its part, the Department has:supported through education support grants (ESG) 24 LEA projects designed to improve support services for the most difficult pupils (expenditure of £7·3 million over a three year period ending March 1993);
  supported through ESG 31 projects designed to improve school attendance (£7·4 million over a three-year period ending March 1993). Similar projects to a value of some £9·6 million are being supported in 71 LEAs under the grants for education support and training (GEST) scheme 1993–94;
  monitored permanent exclusions at maintained schools over a two-year period, starting with summer term 1990, under the national exclusions reporting system (NERS). The key findings from the two-year exercise were published on 23 April 1993;
  supported research at Sheffield university designed to
  416
  identify good practice in relation to discipline in inner-city schools and further work on the evaluation of intervention strategies used to combat bullying;
  required that all initial teacher training courses should include separate, compulsory elements of practical training in how to manage pupil behaviour, and that these skills should be a key factor in assessing a student's performance and competence to teach.

  Youth Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to impose a statutory obligation on local authorities to develop youth services.

  Mr. Boswell
  Local education authorities already have a duty under section 41 of the Education Act 1944 as substituted by section 11 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to secure provision for further education. Further education is defined as including vocational training, social physical and recreational training and organised leisure time occupation. Section 53 of the 1944 Act also provides that the facilities provided by an LEA for primary, secondary and further education must include adequate faclities for recreation, social and physical training.

  These provisions cover the youth service and it is for individual authorities to decide how they fulfil their duty.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish figures showing the number of pupil exclusions in(a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary sector within each local education authority in England in each year since 1987; and what has been the percentage of excluded pupils within the general school population in each local authority area in each year.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on fixed term and indefinite exclusions has not been collected centrally. Information on permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England was collected by the Department over a two year period, starting with summer term 1990, under the national exclusions reporting system (NERS). The results of the survey were published on 23 April 1993 and showed that a total of 6,743 permanent exclusions had been reported with 2,910 in year one and 3,833 in year two. Exclusions in the primary phase accounted for 13 per cent. of the total in year one and 14 per cent. in year two. The information was gathered for purposes of national aggregation and it is not possible to provide a breakdown of the figures by area because of assurances given as to confidentiality.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many ballots in England on grant-maintained status have resulted in participation rates(a) above 79 per cent., (b) between 70 and 79 per cent., (c) between 60 and 69 per cent., (d) between 50 and 59 per cent. and (e) below 50 per cent.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is as follows, correct as of 21 July.

  Participation rates

  Number of ballots

  80 per cent. or over

  126

  70 per cent. to less than 80 per cent.

  294

  60 per cent. to less than 70 per cent.

  456

  417

  Participation rates

  Number of ballots

  50 per cent, to less than 60 per cent.

  332

  Less than 50 per cent.

  33

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 6 November 1992,Official Report, column 478, how many (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority in England are or have been eligible to apply for grant-maintained status; how many in each case have held ballots under section 61 of the Education Act 1988; how many ballots in each case resulted in votes to seek grant-maintained status, and how many of these have been

  Table of the SG(GM) Voting Patterns by Local Education Authority Primary Schools (As at 21 July 1993)

  LEA

  Total Number of schools in LEA1 (LEA or SG(GM))

  Number of ballots held

  Number of ballots that resulted in "yes" votes

  votes

  201 Corporation of London

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  202 Camden

  41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  203 Greenwich

  77

  1

  1

  —

  —

  204 Hackney

  70

  1

  1

  1

  —

  205 Hammersmith

  39

  1

  1

  1

  —

  206 Islington

  57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  207 Kensington

  27

  2

  2

  —

  —

  208 Lambeth

  78

  3

  3

  —

  —

  209 Lewisham

  74

  1

  1

  —

  —

  210 Southwark

  77

  3

  3

  —

  —

  211 Tower Hamlets

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  212 Wandsworth

  70

  5

  3

  1

  2

  213 Westminster

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  301 Barking

  54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  302 Barnet

  89

  5

  2

  —

  3

  303 Bexley

  67

  3

  2

  —

  1

  304 Brent

  65

  2

  2

  1

  —

  305 Bromley

  78

  4

  3

  —

  1

  306 Croydon

  99

  1

  1

  —

  —

  307 Ealing

  92

  4

  4

  2

  —

  308 Enfield

  69

  3

  1

  —

  2

  309 Haringey

  77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  310 Harrow

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  311 Havering

  74

  —

  —

  —

  —

  312 Hillingdon

  73

  11

  11

  —

  —

  313 Hounslow

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  314 Kingston on Thames

  36

  1

  1

  —

  —

  315 Merton

  49

  1

  —

  —

  1

  316 Newham

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  317 Redbridge

  56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  318 Richmond on Thames

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  319 Sutton

  42

  3

  3

  —

  —

  320 Waltham Forest

  61

  —

  —

  —

  —

  330 Birmingham

  337

  10

  5

  —

  5

  331 Coventry

  110

  1

  —

  —

  1

  332 Dudley

  83

  1

  1

  —

  —

  333 Sandwell

  112

  —

  —

  —

  —

  334 Solihull

  70

  1

  1

  —

  —

  335 Walsall

  106

  3

  2

  —

  1

  336 Wolverhampton

  103

  1

  —

  —

  1

  340 Knowsley

  64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  341 Liverpool

  186

  —

  —

  —

  —

  342 St. Helens

  73

  1

  1

  1

  —

  343 Sefon

  94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  344 Wirral

  106

  —

  —

  —

  —

  350 Bolton

  107

  1

  1

  —

  —

  351 Bury

  72

  2

  1

  —

  1

  352 Manchester

  174

  —

  —

  —

  —

  353 Oldham

  101

  —

  —

  —

  —

  354 Rochdale

  76

  5

  4

  —

  1

  355 Salford

  89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  418
  subject to section 12 or 13 notices; and how many ballots in each case resulted in votes against seeking grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is listed in the table. Column 2 gives the total number of maintained schools in each LEA in January 1992 (other than special schools and nurseries). Column 5 gives the number of schools which were subject to section 12 or 13 proposals when they published proposals for self-governing (GM) status. Information on schools subject to section 12 or 13 proposals which have voted against self-governing (GM) status, or which have voted in favour of self-governing (GM) status but not yet published proposals is not held centrally.
  419

  LEA

  Total Number of schools in LEA1 (LEA or SG(GM))

  Number of ballots held

  Number of ballots that resulted in "yes" votes

  votes

  356 Stockport

  110

  —

  —

  —

  —

  357 Tameside

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  358 Trafford

  78

  —

  —

  —

  —

  359 Wigan

  124

  —

  —

  —

  —

  370 Barnsley

  98

  1

  1

  1

  —

  371 Doncaster

  127

  4

  3

  2

  1

  372 Rotherham

  116

  —

  —

  —

  —

  373 Sheffield

  181

  14

  12

  5

  2

  380 Bradford

  165

  2

  1

  —

  1

  381 Calderdale

  94

  3

  3

  —

  —

  382 Kirklees

  161

  2

  —

  —

  2

  383 Leeds

  224

  3

  1

  —

  2

  384 Wakefield

  131

  1

  1

  1

  —

  390 Gateshead

  85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  391 Newcastle

  85

  1

  —

  —

  1

  392 North Tyne

  62

  2

  1

  —

  1

  393 South Tyne

  61

  —

  —

  —

  —

  394 Sunderland

  106

  —

  —

  —

  —

  420 Isles of Scilly

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  901 Avon

  369

  4

  —

  —

  4

  902 Bedfordshire

  218

  3

  3

  —

  —

  903 Berkshire

  275

  9

  7

  —

  2

  904 Buckinghamshire

  287

  8

  6

  —

  2

  905 Cambridge

  264

  9

  7

  —

  2

  906 Cheshire

  460

  7

  5

  3

  2

  907 Cleveland

  202

  —

  —

  —

  —

  908 Cornwall

  250

  1

  1

  —

  —

  909 Cumbria

  312

  19

  17

  —

  2

  910 Derbyshire

  450

  13

  7

  —

  6

  911 Devon

  444

  5

  2

  1

  3

  912 Dorset

  199

  2

  1

  —

  1

  913 Durham

  297

  —

  —

  —

  —

  914 East Sussex

  218

  —

  —

  —

  —

  915 Essex

  579

  69

  65

  —

  4

  916 Gloucestershire

  264

  10

  9

  —

  1

  917 Hampshire

  581

  20

  18

  7

  2

  918 Hereford and Worcester

  288

  2

  —

  —

  2

  919 Hertfordshire

  440

  11

  8

  —

  3

  920 Humberside

  354

  5

  3

  —

  2

  921 Isle of Wight

  46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  922 Kent

  575

  22

  20

  2

  2

  923 Lancashire

  601

  3

  2

  —

  1

  924 Leicester

  331

  —

  —

  —

  —

  925 Lincolnshire

  293

  27

  24

  —

  3

  926 Norfolk

  398

  18

  14

  —

  4

  927 North Yorkshire

  395

  2

  —

  —

  2

  928 Northamptonshire

  270

  13

  10

  —

  3

  929 Northumberland

  143

  —

  —

  —

  —

  930 Nottinghamshire

  423

  1

  —

  —

  —

  931 Oxfordshire

  240

  1

  1

  —

  —

  932 Shropshire

  216

  3

  3

  2

  —

  933 Somerset

  233

  4

  2

  —

  2

  934 Staffordshire

  412

  2

  2

  —

  —

  935 Suffolk

  255

  —

  —

  —

  —

  936 Surrey

  373

  19

  17

  8

  2

  937 Warwickshire

  244

  —

  —

  —

  —

  938 West Sussex

  244

  —

  —

  —

  —

  939 Wiltshire

  295

  12

  10

  —

  2

  Totals

  18,926

  438

  348

  39

  90

  1 January 1992 totals.

  420 421

  Table of the SG(GM) Voting Patterns by Local Education Authority Secondary Schools (As at 21 July 1993)

  LEA

  Total Number of schools in LEAl (LEA or SG(GM))

  Number of ballots held

  Number of ballots that resulted in "yes" votes

  votes

  201 Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  202 Camden

  11

  3

  2

  —

  1

  203 Greenwich

  15

  1

  —

  —

  1

  204 Hackney

  10

  1

  —

  —

  1

  205 Hammersmith

  9

  1

  1

  —

  —

  206 Islington

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  207 Kensington

  4

  1

  1

  1

  —

  208 Lambeth

  10

  5

  5

  —

  —

  209 Lewisham

  14

  2

  —

  —

  2

  210 Southwark

  15

  5

  5

  1

  —

  211 Tower Hamlets

  14

  2

  1

  —

  1

  212 Wandsworth

  10

  8

  7

  1

  1

  213 Westminster

  8

  —

  —o

  —

  —

  301 Barking

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  302 Barnet

  20

  11

  10

  1

  1

  303 Bexley

  17

  5

  4

  —

  1

  304 Brent

  14

  11

  9

  2

  2

  305 Bromley

  17

  13

  12

  1

  1

  306 Croydon

  20

  8

  6

  —

  2

  307 Ealing

  13

  8

  6

  6

  2

  308 Enfield

  17

  6

  5

  —

  1

  309 Haringey

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  310 Harrow

  10

  2

  1

  —

  1

  311 Havering

  18

  5

  4

  —"

  1

  312 Hillingdon

  17

  15

  14

  2

  1

  313 Hounslow

  14

  2

  2

  —

  1

  314 Kingston on Thames

  10

  4

  4

  —

  —

  315 Merton

  11

  1

  —

  —

  1

  316 Newham

  14

  1

  1

  1

  —

  317 Redbridge

  14

  2

  1

  —

  1

  318 Richmond on Thames

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  319 Sutton

  14

  8

  8

  —

  —

  320 Waltham Forest

  16

  2

  2

  —

  —

  330 Birmingham

  79

  24

  17

  —

  7

  331 Coventry

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  332 Dudley

  22

  9

  7

  1

  2

  333 Sandwell

  23

  3

  1

  —

  2

  334 Solihull

  14

  2

  1

  —

  1

  335 Walsall

  22

  11

  7

  —

  4

  336 Wolverhampton

  20

  6

  5

  2

  1

  340 Knowsley

  11

  3

  1

  —

  2

  341 Liverpool

  36

  4

  3

  —

  1

  342 St. Helens

  12

  1

  —

  —

  1

  343 Sefton

  22

  1

  —

  —

  1

  344 Wirral

  22

  4

  2

  —

  2

  350 Bolton

  16

  3

  3

  1

  —

  351 Bury

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  352 Manchester

  28

  1

  —

  —

  —

  353 Oldham

  15

  1

  —

  —

  —

  354 Rochdale

  14

  3

  1

  —

  2

  355 Salford

  18

  4

  1

  —

  3

  356 Stockport

  14

  2

  —

  —

  2

  357 Tameside

  18

  5

  3

  1

  2

  358 Trafford

  16

  6

  4

  —

  2

  359 Wigan

  22

  1

  1

  1

  —

  370 Barnsley

  15

  2

  —

  —

  2

  371 Doncaster

  34

  1

  —

  —

  1

  372 Rotherham

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  373 Sheffield

  32

  7

  5

  2

  2

  380 Bradford

  87

  8

  6

  —

  2

  381 Calderdale

  17

  7

  6

  2

  1

  382 Kirklees

  36

  5

  3

  1

  2

  383 Leeds

  97

  1

  1

  —

  —

  384 Wakefield

  38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  390 Gateshead

  13

  1

  —

  —

  1

  391 Newcastle

  22

  1

  —

  —

  1

  392 North Tyne

  27

  3

  2

  1

  1

  393 South Tyne

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  394 Sunderland

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  420 Isles of Scilly

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  422 423

  LEA

  Total Number of Numbe schools in LEA1 (LEA or SG(GM))

  Number of ballots held

  Number of ballots that resulted in "yes" votes

  votes

  901 Avon

  60

  4

  2

  1

  2

  902 Bedfordshire

  71

  16

  10

  1

  6

  903 Berkshire

  59

  12

  10

  1

  2

  904 Buckinghamshire

  45

  11

  10

  —

  1

  905 Cambridge

  44

  25

  17

  1

  8

  906 Cheshire

  69

  11

  4

  2

  7

  907 Cleveland

  44

  3

  —

  —

  3

  908 Cornwall

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  909 Cumbria

  43

  13

  13

  4

  —

  910 Derbyshire

  61

  22

  14

  1

  8

  911 Devon

  69

  9

  6

  —

  3

  912 Dorset

  59

  14

  13

  4

  1

  913 Durham

  44

  1

  —

  —

  1

  914 East Sussex

  34

  1

  —

  —

  1

  915 Essex

  105

  72

  69

  1

  3

  916 Gloucestershire

  42

  33

  27

  2

  6

  917 Hampshire

  94

  20

  17

  2

  3

  918 Hereford and Worcester

  76

  7

  5

  —

  2

  919 Hertfordshire

  88

  27

  22

  2

  5

  920 Humberside

  60

  3

  —

  —

  3

  921 Isle of Wight

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  922 Kent

  138

  70

  66

  10

  4

  923 Lancashire

  107

  16

  9

  1

  7

  924 Leicester

  79

  9

  5

  1

  4

  925 Lincolnshire

  63

  27

  27

  2

  —

  926 Norfolk

  52

  16

  12

  —

  4

  927 North Yorkshire

  59

  2

  —

  —

  2

  928 Northamptonshire

  65

  20

  14

  3

  6

  929 Northumberland

  61

  3

  1

  —

  2

  930 Nottinghamshire

  85

  8

  3

  1

  5

  931 Oxfordshire

  43

  2

  —

  —

  2

  932 Shropshire

  36

  6

  6

  1

  —

  933 Somerset

  39

  1

  1

  —

  —

  934 Staffordshire

  85

  10

  5

  —

  5

  935 Suffolk

  77

  1

  —

  —

  1

  936 Surrey

  51

  13

  13

  2

  —

  937 Warwickshire

  36

  9

  8

  1

  1

  938 West Sussex

  41

  3

  —

  —

  3

  939 Wiltshire

  44

  20

  15

  —

  5

  Totals

  3,731

  803

  615

  73

  188

  1 January 1992 totals excluding 6th Form Colleges.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in how many ballots in England under section 61 of the Education Reforms Act 1988, where a simple majority of parents voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status, the proportion of such parents was(a) above 69 per cent., (b) between 60 and 69 per cent., (c) between 50 and 59 per cent., (d) between 40 and 49 per cent., (e) between 30 and 39 per cent. and (f) below 30 per cent. of the number of parents eligible to vote.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is as follows, correct as of 21 July.

  Percentage of eligible parents voting "yes"

  Number of ballots

  70 per cent, or over

  104

  60 per cent.—less than 70 per cent.

  138

  50 per cent.—less than 60 per cent.

  242

  40 per cent.—less than 50 per cent.

  287

  30 per cent.—less than 40 per cent.

  167

  less than 30 per cent.

  25

  424
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those grant-maintained schools which have been required to repay any or all of any grant under section 79 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, by local education authority, those grant-maintained schools for which the final budgets for the financial year 1993–94 were below the value of the proposed final annual maintenance grant, in each case stating(a) the proposed final AMG and (b) the final AMG.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is given in the table.

  GM AMG—1993–94

  School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  £

  £

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School For Boys

  2,685,434

  2,675,943

  425

  School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  £

  £

  Bedfordshire

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  326,490

  318,337

  Manshead CE Upper School

  1,819,281

  1,804,759

  Berkshire

  Southlands School

  1,388,715

  1,336,886

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  2,374,578

  2,326,426

  Whitelocke Infant and Nursery School

  268,260

  267,466

  Bexley

  St. Columba's RC Boys School

  1,728,391

  1,598,267

  St. Mary and St. Joseph's School

  1,604,686

  1,522,403

  Bolton

  George Tomlinson School

  1,502,743

  1,340,663

  Bradford

  Bingley Grammar School

  2,107,250

  2,078,799

  Oakbank School

  2,463,211

  2,391,363

  Cambridgeshire

  Bassingbourn Village College

  902,676

  858,366

  Gamlingay Village College

  415,101

  412,435

  The Queen's School, Wisbech

  3,067,674

  3,024,982

  Sawtry Village College

  1,354,921

  1,291,906

  Wheatfields Junior School

  505,856

  498,875

  The King's School, Peterborough

  1,834,790

  1,782,920

  Jack Hunt School

  3,071,177

  3,011,650

  Longsands Community College

  2,834,472

  2,813,248

  Sawston Village College

  2,339,941

  2,315,722

  Derbyshire

  The Merrill Community School

  2,296,888

  2,142,353

  John Port School

  3,466,400

  3,455,267

  Murray Park Community School

  2,020,900

  1,961,579

  Noel Baker School

  2,772,186

  2,691,008

  Repton Primary School

  286,568

  272,386

  Dudley

  Old Swinford Hospital School

  1,353,932

  1,333,690

  Essex

  Beauchamps School, Wickford

  1,632,598

  1,500,912

  King Edward VI Girls School, Chelmsford

  1,668,285

  1,645,444

  King Harold School

  1,654,751

  1,611,949

  North Crescent Primary School

  331,361

  309,353

  Rickstones School

  1,354,346

  1,304,412

  Torells Comprehensive School

  1,348,562

  1,323,256

  The Appleton School

  2,403,831

  2,351,509

  The Hedley Walter School

  2,039,499

  1,914,949

  Westcliff High School For Girls

  1,979,784

  1,963,536

  Belfairs Community College

  2,668,155

  2,601,882

  Northwick Park County Infant School

  331,619

  329,561

  The Eastwood School

  1,772,834

  1,748,207

  Hampshire

  Abbotswood Middle School

  844,731

  826,691

  Bay House Grant-maintained School

  3,276,655

  3,203,364

  Blackfield Middle School

  586,385

  578,966

  Hertfordshire

  Parmiters School

  2,333,813

  2,322,198

  Christ Church CE JMI School, Chorley

  319,139

  311,975

  Hertingfordbury School

  244,250

  240,010

  Bushey Hall School

  2,571,885

  2,397,349

  Hillingdon

  Hayes Manor School

  1,747,694

  1,727,799

  Mellow Lane School

  2,372,797

  2,318,510

  Northwood School

  2,278,887

  2,201,048

  426

  School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  £

  £

  Swakeleys School

  1,856,814

  1,833,869

  Vyners School

  2,161,804

  2,004,307

  Hounslow

  Gumley House Convent School

  2,251,140

  2,220,884

  Kent

  Thamesview School

  2,280,985

  2,254,247

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  1,077,926

  1,005,749

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  1,505,123

  1,451,715

  Mascalls School

  2,868,192

  2,848,129

  Meopham School

  986,030

  935,095

  The Wildernesse School

  1,456,554

  1,389,844

  Oldborough Manor High School

  1,537,167

  1,535,140

  Kingston

  Richard Challoner School

  1,569,710

  1,534,475

  Tiffin School

  2,369,820

  2,258,964

  Lincolnshire

  Skegness Grammar School

  1,505,727

  1,482,438

  The Kings School, Grantham

  1,916,942

  1,891,740

  Carre's Grammar School

  1,091,103

  1,078,102

  Yarborough High School

  2,415,986

  2,364,073

  North Kesteven School

  2,648,988

  2,586,321

  Robert Pattinson School

  2,444,092

  2,415,355

  Ancaster High School

  1,267,502

  1,262,259

  William Farr CE School

  1,735,540

  1,679,426

  Gleed Girls School

  1,208,925

  1,130,082

  Monks' Dyke School

  1,504,824

  1,504,382

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  592,816

  587,612

  Norfolk

  Acle High School

  1,175,358

  1,144,641

  Cromer High School

  1,285,699

  1,244,563

  Great Yarmouth High School

  1,616,159

  1,585,705

  St. Clements High School

  1,196,556

  1,170,746

  West Flegg Middle School

  678,538

  660,604

  Wymondham College

  2,341,738

  2,303,400

  Gresham County Primary School

  175,466

  161,864

  Heacham Middle School

  390,702

  363,868

  Redgate Middle School, Hunstanton

  309,338

  289,155

  Northamptonshire

  Lodge Park School

  1,876,194

  1,810,351

  Windmill Primary School

  617,400

  578,154

  Sandwell

  Manor High School

  1,848,555

  1,789,513

  Sheffield

  Clifford First School

  144,612

  120,602

  Southwark

  London Nautical School

  1,495,297

  1,491,358

  Surrey

  Gordon's School

  787,666

  756,557

  Hawkedale First School

  182,746

  161,194

  Manor First School

  259,389

  240,411

  Send CE First School

  243,980

  232,999

  Walsall

  Shire Oak Community School

  1,459,790

  1,400,817

  The Steetly School

  2,385,678

  2,321,781

  Warwickshire

  Avon Valley School

  730,195

  727,515

  Ash Green School (Exhall)

  1,111,820

  1,103,673

  Hartshill School

  1,350,262

  1,346,854

  Queen Elizabeth School Atherstone

  1,554,124

  1,552,689

  Myton School

  2,235,952

  2,226,965

  Rugby High School For Girls

  1,230,469

  1,226,666

  427

  School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  £

  £

  Wiltshire

  Highbury School

  1,158,555

  1,093,707

  Lavington School

  11,077,939

  1,056,388

  1 Updated from previous answer to exclude adjustments in respect of 1992–93.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, by local education authority, those schools which will be operating with grant-maintained status from September.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The schools which have been approved for self-governing status as of 21 July, or which my right hon. Friend is minded to approve, and which will be operating as self-governing (GM) state schools in September are listed. Further applications with proposed start dates in September are still under consideration.

  Avon

  Oldfield School

  Beechen Cliff School

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys

  Mill Hill Grant-Maintained High School

  St. Mary's CE High School

  Hendon School

  Bedfordshire

  Lea Manor High School and Community College

  Crawley Green Grant Maintained Infant School

  Holywell School

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  Ashcroft High School

  Queensbury School

  Ashton St. Peters (VA) Lower School

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  Icknield High School

  Manshead School

  Stopsley High School and Community College

  Wootton Upper School

  Lincroft Middle School (Grant Maintained)

  Berkshire

  Herschel Grammar School

  Slough Grammar School (Formerly Upton Grammar)

  The Downs School

  Denefield School

  Priory School

  Cippenham Middle School (Grant Maintained)

  Reading School

  Whitelocke Infant and Nursery School

  Langley Grammr School

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  Holy Family RC School

  Castlevitw Combined School

  St. Bartholomew's School

  Westgate School

  Southlands School

  Bexley

  St. Columba's RC Boys School

  St. Catherine's RC School for Girls

  Bexley Erith Technical High School for Boys

  St. Mary & St. Joseph's Grant Maintained School

  Barnehurst Infant Grant-Maintained School

  Barnehurst Junior Grant-Maintained School

  Birmingham

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  King Edward VI Handsworth School

  Ninestiles School

  428

  King Edward VI Aston School

  Hall Green School

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls

  Small Heath School

  Great Barr Grant-Maintained School

  The Fairfax School

  Deanery Junior School

  Deanery Infant School

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  Bolton

  George Tomlinson School

  St. James' CE School

  Canon Slade School

  Crompton Fold Primary School

  Bradford

  Oakbank School

  Bingley Grammar School

  Laisterdyke Grant-Maintained Middle School

  Thornton School

  Hanson Grant-Maintained School

  Killinghall School

  Brent

  Claremont High School (Grant-Maintained)

  Kingsbury High School

  Convent of Jesus and Mary GM High School

  Queens Park Community School (GM)

  Copland Community School and Technology Centre

  Bromley

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  Crofton Junior School

  Holy Innocents Roman Catholic Primary School

  Newstead Wood School for Girls (GM)

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  Hayes School

  Charles Darwin School

  St. John Rigby School

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  Langley Park School for Boys

  Coopers School

  Kelsey Park School

  St. Olave's and St. Saviour's Grammar School

  Buckinghamshire

  Castlefield Combined School

  Hamilton Combined School

  Bridgewater Hall School, Stantonbury Campus

  Beaconsfield High School

  Overstone Grant Maintained Combined School

  Brindley Hall School

  Wycome Royal Grammar School

  Lord Grey School

  Wing School

  Beechview Middle School (Grant-Maintained)

  The Chalfonts Community College (GM)

  The Radcliffe School

  Brookmead School

  Brushwood Middle School

  Calderdale

  Rastrick High School

  Salterlee Primary School

  The North Halifax Grammar School

  Holy Trinity CE Senior School (GM)

  The Crossley Heath School

  Cambridgeshire

  Jack Hunt School, Peterborough

  Deacon's School

  The King's School (Peterborough Cathedral Sc)

  Sawston Village College

  Sawtry Village College GM School

  St. John Fisher RC Comprehensive School

  St. Peter's School

  Longsands Community College

  429

  The Village College, Comberton

  Gamlingay (Grant-Maintained) Village College

  Bassingbourn GM Village College

  Stanground College (Grant-Maintained)

  Orton Wistow Primary School

  Wheatfields Junior School

  The Queen's School

  St. Helen's Primary School

  Crosshall Junior School

  Ailwyn Community School

  The Park Lane Primary School

  Crosshall Infant School

  Cheshire

  Henbury County High School

  Fallibroome High School

  Bankfield High School (GM)

  Mottram St. Andrew Primary School

  Kettleshulme St. James CE G.M. Primary School

  Croydon

  St. Joseph's Colleage

  Thomas More Grant Maintained School

  Riddlesdown Grant-Maintained School

  Edenham School

  Cumbria

  Hayton CE Grant-Maintained School

  Appleby Grammar School

  Warwick Bridge (GM) Primary School

  Dallam School

  Scotby CE Grant Maintained Primary School

  Harraby School

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar School

  Parkview School

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  Cartmel Priory CE School

  The Queen Katherine School

  Brampton Junior School

  St. Aidan's County High School

  Trinity School, Carlisle

  Derbyshire

  Murray Park Community School

  The Pingle School

  Chellaston School

  Belper Grant-Maintained School

  Heanor Gate School

  Linton Primary School

  Noel-Baker Community School (GM)

  Repton Primary School

  Netherthorpe School

  West Park Community School

  Lady Manners School

  The Merrill Community School

  Friesland School

  Belmont Primary School

  John Port School

  The Ecclesbourne School

  Chellaston Junior School

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  Devon

  St. Boniface's College

  Teign School

  Knowles Hill School

  Colyton Grammar School

  Torquay Boys' Grammar School (GM)

  Dorset

  St. Peter's RC School

  The Woodroffe School

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School

  Parkstone Grammar School

  Budmouth School

  St. Walburga's RC Primary School

  Poole Technical High School (ex Henry Harbin)

  Bournemouth School

  Bournemouth School for Girls

  430

  Avonbourne School

  Dudley

  Alder Coppice Primary School

  Old Swinford Hospital

  The Ellowes Hall School

  The High Areal School

  The Kingswinford Grant-Maintained School

  Ealing

  Wood End Middle School

  Wood End First School

  Greenford High School

  Drayton Manor High School

  Brentside High School

  Northolt High School

  The Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls

  Enfield

  The Latymer School

  Albany School

  Broomfield School

  Essex

  The Rickstones School

  Beauchamps Grant-Maintained School

  Colbayns High Grant Maintained School

  Katherines Primary School

  The King John School

  Bromfords School, Wickford

  King Harold Grant-Maintained School

  The Greensward School

  Rodings Central Primary School

  St. Martin's Grant-Maintained School

  Tendring High School

  Torells Grant-Maintained School

  St. Katherine's CE VA Primary School

  Holland Haven Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Rolph CE VA Primary School

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls

  Chelmer Valley High School (Grant Maintained)

  St. Clare's RC Primary School

  St. Helena School

  Southend High School for Boys

  Southend Girls High School

  St. Clere's School

  South Benfleet Primary School

  Thurstable School

  Hassenbrook School

  Sir Charles Lucas School

  Chalvedon School

  Newlands Spring Grant Maintained School

  Takeley Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Cecil Jones High School

  The Gilberd School

  Newport Free Grammar School

  Saffron Walden County High School

  Westcliff High School for Girls

  Holland Park County Primary School

  Castle View School

  The Grays School (Grant Maintained)

  Great Totham Primary School

  St. Osyth EC Aided Primary School

  Colchester Royal Grammar School

  Rainsford School

  Gable Hall Grant-Maintained Comprehensive School

  Anglo European School (Ingatestone)

  Furtherwick Park School

  Millfield County Primary School

  The Plume School

  St. Thomas More High School for Boys

  Elmstead County Primary School

  Davenant Foundation School

  Belfairs Community College

  Eastwood County High School & 6th Form Centre

  Northwick Park Grant Maintained Junior School

  Northwick Park Grant Maintained Infant School

  Northlands Grant-Maintained Junior School

  North Crescent Primary School

  King Edward VI Grammar School (G.M.)

  431

  The Bramston School

  The Appleton School

  William Edwards School

  William De Ferrers School

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  Westborough County Primary School

  West Hatch High School

  St. Thomas More RC Primary School

  Thorpedene Infant School

  The Boswells School

  Clacton County High School

  The Thorpe Bay School

  The Philip Morant School

  All Saints Church of England Primary School

  The King Edmund School

  Woodville County Primary School

  St. Andrew's Grant Maintained CE Primary School

  Jotmans Hall Primary School

  The Fitzwimarc School, Rayleigh

  The Elmwood Primary School

  The Deanes School

  The Cornelius Vermuyden School

  The Hedley Walter High School (GM)

  Coppins Green Grant Maintained School

  St. Mary' CE Primary School

  Gloucestershire

  Katharine Lady Berkeley's School

  Stroud High School

  Balcarras School

  Churchdown Gran-Maintained School

  Chosen Hill School, Gloucester

  Chipping Campden School

  Cheltenham Bournside School and 6th form Centre

  Tewkesbury Grant-Maintained School

  Saintbridge GM Technology School

  St. Benedict's RC School

  Robinswood Primary School

  The Cotswold School

  Ribston Hall High School

  Picklenash Junior School

  Pate's Grant Maintained Grammar School Andoversford Primary School

  Wyedean School, Grant Maintained Status

  Winchcombe Community School

  Newent Community School

  Marling School

  The Rednock School

  The Crypt School

  Blue Coat CE Grant-Maintained Primary School

  The Catholic School of St. Gregory the Great

  Hammersmith

  London Oratory School

  Hampshire

  The Arnewood School

  Bohunt Community School

  Testwood School

  Testbourne Community School

  All Hallows RC School

  Hordle CE (C) Grant-Maintained Primary School

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School Hardley School (Grant-Maintained)

  Applemore Technology School

  Ringwood School (GM Comprehensive)

  Blackfield Middle School (Grant Maintained)

  Calmore Grant-Maintained Middle School

  Front Lawn Middle School

  Bay House Grant-Maintained School

  Oaklands RC Comprehensive School

  Burgate School

  Abbotswood Grant Maintained Middle School

  The Priory School

  Crofton School, Fareham

  The City of Portsmouth Boys' School

  Havering

  Abbs Cross School

  The Frances Bardsley School for Girls

  432

  The Coopers' Company and Coborn (GM School)

  The Sacred Heart of Mary Girls' School

  Hereford and Worcester

  Blessed Edward Oldcorne RC High School

  St. Bede's Catholic Grant Maintained School

  St. Augustine's Catholic GM School

  Prince Henry's Grant-Maintained High School

  Bromsgrove CE Middle School

  Hertfordshire

  The Bishop's Stortford High School

  Ashlyns Grant-Maintained School

  Christ Church CE School

  St. Mary's Catholic Primary School

  Hertingfordbury Cowper JMI School

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  Rickmansworth School

  Goffs School

  Queens' School

  Francis Bacon School

  Parmiters School

  Parkside First School

  Bushey Meads Grant-Maintained School

  Bushey Hall School

  Nicholas Breakspear Roman Catholic GM School

  Mount Grace (GM) School

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  Dame Alice Owen's School

  Marlborough School

  The Leventhorpe School

  The John Henry Newman School

  Hillingdon

  Swakeleys School

  Mellow Lane School

  Bishopshalt School

  Abbotsfield School

  Haydon School

  Grange Park Junior School

  Grange Park Infant School Queensmead School

  Oak Farm Junior Mixed School (G.M.)

  Oak Farm Infant School (Grant-Maintained) Northwood School

  Uxbridge High School

  The Hayes Manor School

  The Douay Martyrs School

  Vyners School

  Hillside Infant School

  Hounslow

  Gunnersbury Catholic School for Boys

  Gumley House Convent School

  Humberside

  Wold Newton Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  Kent

  The Canterbury High School

  The Bradbourne School

  Borough Green Primary School

  The Archbishop's CE Grant Maintained School

  Thamesview School

  Allington County Primary School

  Sutton-at-Hone CE GM Primary School

  Homewood School

  St. Simon Stock School

  Holy Trinity CE Primary School

  Holy Family RC Grant Maintained Primary School

  The Skinners' School, Tunbridge Wells

  The Malting School

  St. John Fisher Catholic Comprehensive School

  Hillview School for Girls

  Cheyne Middle School

  St. George's Church of England School

  St. George's CE High School

  433

  St. Francis' RC Primary School

  St. Edmund's RC Comprehensive School

  St. Botolph's CE Primary School

  Herne Bay Junior School (Grant Maintained)

  Herne Bay High School

  St. Anselm's RC School

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  Southfields School

  Snodland CE Primary School

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys

  Senacre Technology School

  Sandown Court Community College

  Roseacre Junior School

  Rochester Grammar School for Girls

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  Queen Elizabeth's School

  Fulston Manor School

  Angley School

  Oldborough Manor Community College

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  Barton Court Grammar School

  Wrotham School

  Ditton CE Primary School

  Dartford Grammar School

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  Westlands High School

  St. Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive School

  Minster College

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  Meopham Grant-maintained School

  Tonbridge Grammar School for Girls

  Mascalls School

  The Wildernesse School

  The Thomas Aveling School

  The Robert Napier Grant-Maintained School

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  Aylesford School

  The Hugh Christie School

  Cranbrook School

  The Grammar School for Girls Wilmington

  The Frank Montgomery School

  The Folkestone School for Girls

  The Cornwallis School

  The Charles Dickens School

  Chaucer Technology School

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Holy Cross Convent School

  Beverley School

  Richard Challoner School

  Tiffin School

  Kirklees

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School

  Knowsley

  The St. Thomas Becket School

  Lambeth

  Bishop Thomas Grant School

  St. Bernadette RC Junior Mixed School

  Archbishop Tenison's School

  Dunraven Grant-maintained School

  La Retraite R.C. Girls, (G.M.) School

  St. Martin-in-the-Fields High School

  Lancashire

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  Archbishop Temple School (Ex William Temple)

  Newton Bluecoat C of E GM Primary School

  Baines School

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  Leicestershire

  South Wigston High School

  434

  Abington High School

  Bushloe High School, Grant Maintained

  Uppingham Community College

  Long Field GM High School

  Lewisham

  Turnham Primary with Nursery G.M. School

  Lincolnshire

  The Ancaster High School, Lincoln

  Huttoft County Primary School

  Washingborough School

  St. George's Grant-Maintained School

  St. Andrews CE Primary School

  Spalding County Primary School

  Skegness Grammar School

  Chapel St. Leonards County Primary School

  The Malcolm Sargent Grant Maintained School

  Robert Pattinson Grant-Maintained School

  Carre's Grammar School

  Rauceby School CE G.M.

  Gleed Girls Grant Maintained School

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  Qheen Elizabeth's G.M. Grammar School

  Caistor Grammar School

  Ermine Junior Grant Maintained School

  North Kesteven Grant-Maintained School

  William Farr CE Comprehensive School

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  Monks' Dyke High School

  The Magdalen School

  Branston School and Community College

  Yarborough High School

  The Kings School Grantham

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  Cranwell County Primary School

  The Gartree Grant Maintained School

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  Bourne Abbey Primary School

  King Edward VI School

  The Castle Hills GM School, Gainsborough

  Liverpool

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  Newham

  Stratford School

  Norfolk

  Cliff Park High School (Grant Maintained)

  St. Clement's High School

  Heacham Middle School (G.M.)

  South Wootton Grant-Maintained Junior School

  Sheringham High School

  Gresham Village School (Grant-Maintained)

  Robert Kett Grant-Maintained Middle School

  Great Yarmouth High School

  Redgate Grant-Maintained Middle School

  Flegg High School

  Norwich Road School

  Wymondham College (GMS)

  Downham Market High School-Grant-Maintained

  Dereham Church CE Grant-Maintained School

  West Flegg Middle School (G.M.)

  Marshland High School

  Lynn Grove VC High School

  Cromer High School—Grant-Maintained

  Acle High School

  Loddon Middle Grant-Maintained School

  Costessey High School, Grant-Maintained

  Barnham Broom Primary School

  Northamptonshire

  Collingtree CE Primary School

  Southfield School for Girls

  Sir Christopher Hatton Grant-Maintained School

  Beanfield Junior School (G.M.)

  Queen Elizabeth (Grant-Maintained) School

  Northampton (G.M.) School for Boys

  Wrenn School

  435

  Woodnewton Way Junior School

  Moulton Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  Weavers School

  Montagu School

  Millbrook Infant School

  Danesholme Junior School

  The Windmill County G.M. Primary School

  Manor School, Northamptonshire

  Lodge Park School

  The King John School

  Kingswood School

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  Nottinghamshire

  Greenwood Dale School

  Ravensdale Grant Maintained Middle School

  The George Spencer School

  Oxfordshire

  Shenington CE Primary School

  Redbridge

  Chadwell Heath High School

  Rochdale

  St. James CE Primary School

  Smithy Bridge Primary School

  Wardle High School

  Crossgates Primary School

  Sandwell

  Manor High School, Sandwell

  Sheffield

  Clifford CE Grant-Maintained School

  St. John Fisher RC (VA) Primary School

  Notre Dame School

  All Saints RC Secondary School

  Shropshire

  Abraham Darby School

  Holy Cross CE Junior School

  Charlton School

  Ercall Wood School

  Adams' Grammar School

  The Corbet Grant-Maintained School

  Solihull

  Hatchford Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Somerset

  Sexey's School

  Bruton Primary School

  Southwark

  St. Michael's School

  St. Francesca Cabrini Grant Maintained School

  Notre Dame High School

  The St. Thomas the Apostle GM College

  London Nautical School

  Staffordshire

  St. Thomas More RC High School

  Hollinsclough CE Primary School

  Chasetown High School

  Rising Brook Grant-Maintained School

  Cardinal Griffin RC Comprehensive

  Cannock Chase High School (G.M.)

  Surrey

  The Beacon School

  Thamesmead School

  Stoneleigh First School (Grant-Maintained)

  St. Paul's Catholic School

  Holy Trinity CE Middle School

  St. John the Baptist School

  Heathside Secondary School

  Hawkedale First School

  Send C of E First School (Grant-Maintained)

  Guildford County School

  436

  Rosebery School

  Gordon's Grant-Maintained School

  Glyn School

  Pewley Down County First School

  Park Mead County First School

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  de Stafford School

  The Manor County First School

  Collingwood Grant-Maintained School

  Sutton

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  St. Philomena's Catholic High School for Girls

  Cheam High School

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  Wilsons School

  Wallington High School for Girls

  Wallington High School for Boys

  The John Fisher School

  All Saints CE Primary School

  Tameside

  Fairfield High School

  West Hill School

  Audenshaw High School

  Tower Hamlets

  Raines Foundation School

  Trafford

  Ashton on Mersey School

  Sale Moor School

  New Wellington School

  Blessed Thomas Holford School

  Walsall

  Streetly School

  St. Thomas Moore RC Comprehensive G. M. School

  Aldridge School

  Shire Oak Grant-Maintained Community School

  Queen Mary's High School

  Queen Mary's Grammar School

  Waltham Forest

  Chingford School

  Highams Park School

  Wandsworth

  John Paul II RC School

  Hillbrook Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  Southfields School (GM)

  Salesian College

  Graveney School

  Ethelburga Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  Elliott School (GM)

  Burntwood School

  Warwickshire

  The Avon Valley Grant-Maintained School

  Studley High School

  Ash Green Grant-Maintained School

  Hartshill Grant Maintained School

  Alcester Grammar School

  Rugby High School for Girls

  Queen Elizabeth School, Atherstone

  Myton School

  Wiltshire

  Highbury Secondary Boys' School

  St. Augustine RC (G.M.) Comprehesnive School

  Sheldon School

  Pewsey Vale School (Grant Maintained)

  Downton CE (VC) Primary School

  Aloeric Grant-Maintained School

  Lowbourne Grant Maintained Infants' School

  Lavington Comprehensive School

  Wirral

  Calday Grange Grammar School, West Kirby

  Wirral Grammar Schol for Boys

  437
  Wolverhampton

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  Moseley Park GM School

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list in rank order those grant-maintained schools from which pupils have been permanently excluded, giving in each case(a) the number of such exclusions, (b) the pupil roll of the school and (c) the date it was incorporated as a grant-maintained school.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England was collected by the Department over a two-year period, starting with summer term 1990, under the national exclusions reporting system (NERS). The results of the survey were published on 23 April and showed that a total of 6,743 permanent exclusions had been reported, with 2,910 in year one and 3,833 in year two. This information was collected for purposes of national aggregation and it is not possible to provide a breakdown of the figures by school or by sector because of assurances given as to confidentiality.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total number of schools from which his Department has received inquiries about acquiring grant-maintained status; how many ballots have now been held under section 61 of the Education Reform Act; and how many of these resulted in votes to seek grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not keep records of inquiries related specifically to the acquisition of self-governing status. The high overall level of interest is evident from the numbers of publications issued and attendance at conferences. To date, the Department has distributed 2·5 million publications, largely in response to requests for information. Some 3,500 heads and governors have attended the conferences on self-governing status since November 1992.

  As of 21 July, 1,241 ballots on self-governing (GM) status have been held in England and 963 of these have resulted in votes in favour of applying for self-governing (GM) status.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, columns 123–34, if he will list, by local education authority, those grant-maintained schools which still have yet to receive their final budgets for the 1993–94 financial year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is given in the table. The vast majority of all GM schools will have received their final budgets by the end of this month. GM AMG—1993–94

  SCHOOL

  Avon

  Beechen Cliff School

  Oldfield School

  Birmingham

  Baverstock GM School

  Small Heath School

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  Great Barr School

  Hall Green School

  King Edward VI Aston School

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Boys School

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Girls School

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  438

  King Edward VI Handsworth School

  Bradford

  Hanson GM School

  Brent

  Claremont High School

  Copland Community School

  Convent of Jesus and Mary

  Kingsbury High School

  Queens Park Community School

  Buckinghamshire

  Bridgewater Hall School

  Brindley Hall School

  Beaconsfield High School

  Brookmead County Combined Middle School

  The Chalfonts School

  Overstone Combined School

  Beechview Middle School

  Hamilton Combined School

  Lord Grey School

  The Radcliffe School

  Wycombe Royal Grammar School

  Cheshire

  Bankfield High School

  Kettleshulme CE Primary School

  Fallibroome High School

  Henbury County High School

  Croydon

  Riddlesdown High School

  Edenham School

  Cumbria

  Kirbie Kendal School

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Hayton CE Primary school

  St. Aidan's School

  Trinity School

  Scotby CE Primary School

  The Queen Katharine School, Kendal

  Appleby Grammar School

  Dallam School

  Harraby School

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar School

  Devon

  Colyton Grammar School

  Torquay Boys Grammar School

  St. Boniface's College

  Teign School

  Ealing

  Brentside High School

  Drayton Manor High School

  Ellen Wilkinson High School

  Greenford High School

  Northolt High School

  Wood End First School

  Wood End Middle School

  Gloucestershire

  Ribston Hall High School

  Marling School

  Pate's Grammar School

  Stroud High School

  Robinswood Primary School

  Tewkesbury School

  The Crypt School

  Balcarras School

  Chosen Hill School

  Katharine Lady Berkeley School

  Churchdown School

  The Cotswold School

  Newent Community School Rednock School

  Saintbridge School

  Chipping Camden School

  439

  St. Gregory RC Primary School

  Blue Coat CE Grant-Maintained School

  Picklenash County Junior School

  Wyedean School

  Hammersmith

  London Oratory School

  Havering

  Abbs Cross School

  Coopers Company & Coborn School

  Frances Bardsley School

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  Kent

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  Lambeth

  La Retraite School

  St. Bernadette Junior School

  Archbishop Tenison's School

  Bishop Thomas Grant School

  Dunraven GM School

  Lewisham

  Turnham Primary School

  Nottinghamshire

  Ravensdale Middle School

  Greenwood Dale School

  George Spencer School

  Rochdale

  Crossgates Primary School

  Smithy Bridge Primary School

  St. James CE Primary

  Wardle High School

  Shropshire

  Adams' Grammar School

  Corbet GM School

  Southwark

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary

  Staffordshire

  St. Thomas More School

  Going GM Conferences

  (a) Venue

  Date

  (b) Invitations

  (c) Delegates

  (d) Cost (£)

  North West

  Leeds

  16 Nov. 1992

  —

  95

  6,202

  Bolton

  12 Dec. 1992

  —

  160

  6,873

  Sheffield

  15 Jan. 1993

  —

  207

  8,164

  Manchester

  30 Jan 1993

  12,500

  138

  7,734

  North East

  Newcastle 1

  10 Feb. 1993

  3,290

  222

  17,078

  Newcastle 2

  11 Feb. 1993

  204

  Midlands

  Leicester

  15 Feb. 1993

  —

  108

  4,306

  Nottingham 1

  1 Mar. 1993

  —

  197

  7,751

  Birmingham

  10 Mar. 1993

  —

  202

  8,512

  Nottingham 2

  29 Mar. 1993

  —

  176

  7,378

  Daventry1

  26 Apr. 1993

  6,812

  77

  4,150

  London and Home Counties

  Maidstone

  4 May 1993

  —

  219

  7,894

  St. Albans

  7 May 1993

  —

  198

  9,772

  Heathrow

  13 May 1993

  —

  209

  10,077

  Esher

  19 May 1993

  —

  209

  8,019

  Watford

  27 May 1993

  11,650

  197

  6,876

  South and West

  Bournemouth

  18 June 1993

  —

  180

  6,669

  Cheltenham

  28 June 1993

  —

  194

  6,263

  440
  Cannock Chase High School

  Sutton

  Wilsons School

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  John Fisher School

  Cheam High School

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  St. Philomena's School

  Wallington High School for Boys

  Wallington High School for Girls

  Waltham Forest

  Highams Park School

  Wandsworth

  Graveney School

  Burntwood School

  Elliott School

  Salesian College

  Ethelburga Primary School

  Hillbrook Primary School

  John Paul II RC School

  Southfields School

  Wirral

  Calday Grange Grammar School

  as at 22 July 1993

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, in date order, his Department's conferences for head teachers and governors on grant-maintained status, giving in each case(a) details of the venue, (b) the number of invitations issued, (c) the number of (i) head teachers and (ii) governors attending and (d) the cost.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Conference invitations are issued in respect of a regional round of conferences in order to allow head teachers and governors to select the most convenient time and location. Schools are invited to send two representatives and generally nominate the head teacher and a governor. A precise breakdown of representatives between these two categories is not available. Further details are set out in the table.
  441

  (a) Venue

  Date

  (b) Invitations

  (c) Delegates

  (d) Cost (£)

  Exeter

  13 July 1993

  6,426

  173

  7,638

  Ad Hoc Events

  Taunton

  8 Mar. 1993

  —

  90

  3,491

  Haydock

  30 Apr. 1993

  —

  62

  2,858

  Total excluding ad hoc

  —

  —

  3,270

  141,356

  Total

  —

  40,678

  3,422

  1147,705

  1 In addition, there is a contract for support services which for the 21 conferences has totalled £134,714.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which grant-maintained schools have been visited by Her Majesty's inspectors; and in each case(a) by how many inspectors, (b) for how long and (c) at what cost.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the period up to July 1992, HMI had visited the GM schools listed. I will write to the hon. Member with details of the schools visited in the period since July 1992.

  School

  Total HMI days

  Cost (£)

  Audenshaw

  7·0

  2,590

  Bacup and Rawtenstall

  4·0

  960

  Baverstock

  29·0

  7,260

  Heckmondwike Grammar

  13·5

  3,840

  London Oratory

  9·0

  2,890

  Old Swinford Hospital

  6·0

  1,740

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar

  4·0

  960

  Queensbury

  25·0

  6,600

  Skegness Grammar

  4·0

  960

  Small Heath

  11·0

  3,370

  St· James CE

  8·0

  2,220

  Wilmington Girls' Grammar

  24·0

  8,360

  King's Grantham

  5·0

  1,200

  Wilson's Sutton

  4·5

  1,380

  Castle Hall

  5·0

  1,330

  Hendon

  9·0

  2,850

  Queen Elizabeth's Barnet

  7·0

  1,940

  Colyton Grammar

  21·0

  7,380

  Bankfield High

  24·0

  6,060

  St· Francis Xavier

  8·0

  2,650

  Cardinal Vaughan

  5·0

  1,200

  Claremont High

  5·0

  1,500

  Lancaster Royal Grammar

  2·0

  610

  London Nautical

  27·0

  9,630

  Netherthorpe

  1·0

  240

  Ribston Hall High

  2·5

  825

  Southfield Girls

  3·0

  720

  Southlands

  3·0

  1,000

  Beechen Cliff

  2·0

  610

  Long Field High

  7·0

  2,280

  Adams' Grammar

  4·0

  1,350

  Bishopshalt

  2·5

  795

  Bournemouth Grammar

  4·0

  1,090

  Bridgewater Hall

  2·0

  630

  Brindley Hall

  1·0

  240

  Carre's Grammar

  3·0

  720

  Ecclesbourne

  7·5

  2,625

  Guildford

  2·0

  610

  Marling

  2·0

  630

  Pate's Grammar

  2·0

  480

  Rickmansworth

  17·0

  6,030

  Stroud High

  4·0

  1,370

  Wolverhampton Girls High

  5·0

  1,630

  Bullers Wood Girls

  3·0

  1,020

  Francis Bacon

  3·0

  850

  Handsworth Grammar

  6·5

  2,385

  Hardley

  1·0

  370

  St· Georges (Lincolnshire)

  2·0

  740

  Wymondham College

  1·0

  370

  Chalvedon

  2·0

  740

  442

  School

  Total HMI days

  Cost (£)

  Crossley Heath

  4·0

  1,520

  Great Barr

  4·0

  1,520

  Kingsley Park Middle

  1·0

  370

  Lancaster Girls Grammar

  3·0

  1,150

  North Halifax

  3·0

  1,130

  Reading

  1·0

  370

  Stratford

  5·0

  1,910

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar

  1·0

  370

  The Cornwallis

  1·0

  370

  The Maplesden Noakes

  2·5

  925

  Caistor Grammar

  1·0

  370

  Dartford Grammar

  1·0

  370

  Graveney

  1·0

  370

  Moseley Park

  1·0

  370

  Queensmead

  1·0

  370

  St· Augustine's RC

  2·0

  740

  Queen Elizabeth

  2·0

  780

  Kings School, Lincoln

  3·0

  1,170

  Southlands

  1·0

  390

  Watford Boys' GS

  2·0

  780

  Wilmington Boys' GS

  2·0

  780

  King Edward VI, Lincoln

  1·0

  390

  Watford Girls' GS

  1·0

  390

  Vyners

  1·0

  390

  Haydon

  1·0

  390

  Homewood

  1·5

  585

  Bourne County Primary

  2·0

  780

  Moulton Primary

  2·0

  780

  Kingswood

  1·0

  390

  Manor High

  1·5

  585

  Avon Valley

  1·0

  390

  Christs Hospital

  2·0

  780

  The Gartree Tattershall

  1·0

  390

  Salterlee Primary

  0·5

  195

  Bassingboume Village College

  1·0

  390

  Minster College

  1·0

  390

  Myton

  2·0

  780

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority those grant-maintained schools which are denominational in character, stating in each case which denomination and whether they were previously voluntary aided, voluntary controlled or special agreement schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A list of denominational schools which are currently operating as self-governing (GM) schools is given in the table, together with their denominations and former status.

  Denomination

  Former Status

  Bedfordshire

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  CE

  VA

  Manshead School

  CE

  VC

  Berkshire

  Holy Family RC School

  RC

  VA

  443

  Denomination

  Former Status

  Bexley

  St. Mary and St. Joseph's Grant Maintained School

  RC

  VA

  St. Columba's RC Boys School

  RC

  VA

  Bolton

  St. James' CE School

  CE

  SA

  Canon Slade School

  CE

  VA

  Brent

  Convent of Jesus and Mary GM High School

  RC

  VA

  Bromley

  St. Olave's and St. Saviour's Grammar School

  CE

  VA

  Holy Innocents Roman Catholic Primary School

  RC

  VA

  St. John Rigby School

  RC

  VA

  Calderdale

  Holy Trinity CE Senior School (GM)

  CE

  VA

  Cambridgeshire

  The King's School (Peterborough Cathedral School)

  CE

  VA

  Cheshire

  Kettleshulme St. James CE G.M. Primary School

  CE

  VC

  Cumbria

  Trinity School, Carlisle

  CE

  VC

  Hayton CE Grant-Maintained School

  CE

  VC

  Scotby CE Grant-Maintained Primary School

  CE

  VA

  Devon

  St. Boniface's College

  RC

  VA

  Dorset

  St. Walburga's RC Primary School

  RC

  VA

  Essex

  St. Andrew's Grant Maintained CE Primary School

  CE

  VA

  Rolph CE VA Primary School

  CE

  VA

  Gloucestershire

  Blue Coat CE Grant Maintained Primary School

  CE

  VC

  The Catholic School of St. Gregory the Great

  RC

  VC

  Hammersmith

  London Oratory School

  RC

  VA

  Hampshire

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  RC

  VA

  All Hallows RC School

  RC

  VA

  Hereford and Worcester

  St. Bede's Catholic Grant Maintained School

  RC

  VA

  St. Augustine's Catholic GM School

  RC

  VA

  444

  Denomination

  Former Status

  Hertfordshire

  Hertingfordbury Cowper JMI School

  CE

  VA

  Christ Church CE School

  CE

  VA

  St Mary's Catholic Primary School

  RC

  VA

  Hillingdon

  The Dousay Martyrs School

  RC

  VA

  Hounslow

  Gunnerbury Catholic School for Boys

  RC

  VA

  Gumley House Convent School

  RC

  VA

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  RC

  VA

  Kent

  The Archbishop's CE Grant Maintaned School

  CE

  VA

  Sutton-at-Hone CE GM Primary School

  CE

  VC

  St. Simon Stock School

  RC

  VA

  St. John Fisher Catholic Comprehensive School

  RC

  VA

  St. Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive School

  RC

  VA

  St. George Church of England School

  CE

  SA

  Snodland CE Primary School

  CE

  VC

  Holy Trinity CE Primary School

  CE

  VA

  Kingston-Upon-Thames

  Holy Cross Convent School

  RC

  VA

  Richard Challoner School

  RC

  SA

  Lambeth

  Bishop Thomas Grant School

  RC

  VA

  Archbishop Tenison's School

  CE

  VA

  La Retraite R.C. Girls (G.M.) School

  RC

  VA

  St. Bernadette RC Junior Mixed School

  RC

  VA

  Lancashire

  Newton Bluecoat C of E GM Primary School

  CE

  VA

  Archbishop Temple School (Ex William Temple)

  CE

  VA

  Lincolnshire

  Rauceby School CE G.M.

  CE

  VC

  William Farr CE Comprehensive School

  CE

  VC

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  CE

  VC

  The Magdalon School

  CE/ME

  VC

  Liverpool

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  RC

  VA

  Norfolk

  Dereham Church CE Grant-Maintained

  CE

  VA

  Oxfordshire

  Shenington CE Primary School

  CE

  VA

  Rochdale

  St. James CE Primary School

  CE

  VC

  445

  Denomination

  Former Status

  Sheffield

  Clifford CE Grant-Maintained

  CE

  VC

  Somerset

  Sexey's School

  CE

  VC

  Southwark

  St. Francesca Cabrini Grant Maintained School

  RC

  VA

  Staffordshire

  St. Thomas More RC High School

  RC

  VA

  Surrey

  St. Paul's Catholic School

  RC

  VA

  St. John the Baptist School

  RC

  VA

  Send C of E First School (Grant-Maintained)

  CE

  VC

  Sutton

  Wilsons School

  CE

  VA

  The John Fisher School

  RC

  VA

  St. Philomena's Catholic High School for Girls

  RC

  VA

  Tower Hamlets

  Raines Foundation School

  CE

  VA

  Walsall

  St. Thomas More RC Comprehensive G.M. School

  RC

  VA

  Percentage of primary and secondary pupils in grant maintained schools (September figures include all schools approved as at 21 July 1993)

  (All data based on January 1992 Form 7)

  LEA Name

  Percentage of secondary pupils in GM schools as at July 1993

  Rank

  Percentage of secondary pupils in GM

  Rank

  201 Corporation of London

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  202 Camden

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  203 Greenwich

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  204 Hackney

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  205 Hammersmith

  20·0

  21

  20·0

  29

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  206 Islington

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  207 Kensington

  19·8

  22

  19·8

  32

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  208 Lambeth

  46·5

  5

  53·4

  6

  1·3

  19

  1·3

  27

  209 Lewisham

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  10

  22

  10

  28

  210 Southwark

  4·3

  52

  23·2

  22

  20

  15

  20

  16

  211 Tower Hamlets

  8·0

  44

  8·0

  50

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  212 Wandsworth

  70·4

  2

  70·4

  2

  3·2

  8

  3·2

  12

  213 Westminster

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  301 Barking

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  302 Barnet

  17·4

  25

  22·7

  25

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  303 Bexley

  10·1

  40

  19·9

  31

  2·5

  13

  2·5

  15

  304 Brent

  43·0

  7

  43·0

  10

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  305 Bromley

  63·6

  3

  63·6

  3

  4·4

  3

  4·4

  5

  306 Croydon

  14·1

  34

  25·7

  16

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  307 Ealing

  43·1

  6

  43·1

  9

  1·8

  16

  1·8

  18

  308Enfield

  0·0

  —

  19·9

  30

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  309 Haringey

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  310 Harrow

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  311 Havering

  20·5

  19

  25·5

  18

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  312 Hillingdon

  75·1

  1

  75·1

  1

  6·4

  1

  7·3

  2

  313 Hounslow

  15·6

  31

  15·6

  40

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  280·09

  12

  38·0

  12

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  315 Merton

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  316 Newham

  40·02

  53

  4·2

  59

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  317 Redbridge

  0·0

  —

  7·6

  51

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  318 Richmond on Thames

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  319 Sutton

  59·2

  4

  59·2

  4

  0·0

  —

  1·7

  20

  320 Waltham Forest

  9·9

  41

  17·1

  37

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  446

  Denomination

  Former Status

  Wandsworth

  John Paul II RC School

  RC

  VA

  Salesian College

  RV

  VA

  Wiltshire

  St. Augustine RC (G.M.) Comprehensive School

  RC

  VA

  Key to abbreviations:

  CE—Church of England

  RC—Roman Catholic

  ME—Methodist

  VA—Voluntary Aided

  SA—Special Agreement

  VC—Voluntary Controlled

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list in rank order local education authorities giving the percentage of pupils in(a) the primary and (b) the secondary sector in grant-maintained schools (i) this summer term and (ii) from next September.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  les give the percentages of state-educated secondary and primary pupils attending schools which are currently self-governing (GM) state schools, or will be from September, together with rankings. Percentages for September are based on schools which have been approved, or which my right hon. Friend is minded to approve (as at 21 July) for starting dates in September. Further applications with proposed starting dates in September are still under consideration.
  447

  LEA Name

  Percentage of secondary pupils in GM schools as at July 1993

  Rank

  Percentage of secondary pupils in GM

  Rank

  330 Birmingham

  14·7

  33

  17·7

  36

  0·0

  —

  0·5

  35

  331 Coventry

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  332 Dudley

  12·1

  38

  16·4

  38

  0·0

  —

  1·5

  26

  333 Sandwell

  3·7

  56

  3·7

  61

  0

  —

  0

  —

  334 Solihull

  0

  —

  0

  —

  2·6

  12

  2·6

  14

  335 Walsall

  15·9

  30

  29·4

  14

  0

  —

  0

  —

  336 Wolverhampton

  11·4

  39

  114

  44

  0

  —

  0

  —

  340 Knowsley

  0

  —

  8·1

  48

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  341 Liverpool

  3·6

  57

  3·6

  62

  0

  —

  0

  —

  342 St. Helens

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  343 Sefton

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  344 Wirral

  5·2

  49

  9·4

  46

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  350 Bolton

  12·3

  35

  12·3

  43

  1·6

  17

  1·6

  25

  351 Bury

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  352 Manchester

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  353 Oldham

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —.

  0

  —

  354 Rochdale

  8·1

  43

  8·1

  49

  4·3

  4

  4·3

  6

  355 Salford

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  356 Stockport

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  357 Tameside

  12·3

  36

  18·3

  35

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  358 Trafford

  20·4

  20

  25·6

  17

  0

  —_

  0·0

  —

  359 Wigan

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  370 Barnsley

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  371 Doncaster

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  372 Rotherham

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  373 Sheffield

  0

  —

  7·6

  52

  0·2

  33

  0·6

  34

  380 Bradford

  9·8

  42

  9·8

  45

  0

  —

  0·7

  32

  381 Calderdale

  24·2

  14

  24·2

  21

  0·4

  30

  0·4

  36

  382 Kirklees

  4·8

  50

  4·8

  58

  0

  —

  0

  —

  383 Leeds

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  384 Wakefield

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  390 Gateshead

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  391 Newcastle

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  392 North Tyne

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  393 South Tyne

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  394 Sunderland

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  420 Isles of Scilly

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  901 Avon

  2·8

  60

  2·8

  64

  0

  —

  0

  —

  902 Bedfordshire

  16·4

  27

  19·0

  33

  1·2

  21

  1·6

  23

  903 Berkshire

  15·1

  32

  16·1

  39

  2·6

  11

  3·2

  10

  904 Bucks

  23·2

  15

  24·5

  20

  2·4

  14

  3·6

  8

  905 Cambridge

  27·6

  13

  32·1

  13

  3·3

  7

  3·3

  9

  906 Cheshire

  3·8

  55

  3·8

  60

  0

  35

  0·1

  40

  907 Cleveland

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  908 Cornwall

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  909 Cumbria

  22·3

  17

  26·0

  15

  0·7

  28

  2·0

  17

  910 Derbyshire

  16·3

  28

  24·7

  19

  1·0

  23

  1·7

  21

  911 Devon

  5·3

  48

  6·6

  54

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  912 Dorset

  17·7

  24

  21·4

  26

  0·9

  25

  0·9

  30

  913 Durham

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  914 East Sussex

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  915 Essex

  41·6

  9

  54·0

  5

  3·0

  10

  6·3

  3

  916 Gloucestershire

  42·0

  8

  49·4

  7

  3·0

  9

  3·2

  11

  917 Hampshire

  12·2

  37

  15·4

  41

  1·5

  18

  1·7

  22

  918 Hereford and Worcester

  2·9

  59

  7·5

  53

  0

  —

  0

  —

  919 Hertfordshire

  16·3

  29

  22·7

  24

  0·9

  24

  0·9

  29

  920 Humberside

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0·

  34

  0·

  39

  921 Isle of Wight

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  922 Kent

  33·0

  11

  43·5

  8

  1·3

  20

  2·6

  13

  923 Lancashire

  5·4

  46

  5·4

  56

  0·2

  31

  0·2

  37

  924 Leicester

  5·4

  47

  5·4

  57

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  925 Lincolnshire

  35·6

  10

  38·6

  11

  5·3

  2

  7·9

  1

  926 Norfolk

  21·2

  18

  21·2

  27

  3·6

  5

  3·7

  7

  927 North Yorks

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  928 Northants

  19·1

  23

  20·5

  28

  3·3

  6

  4·9

  4

  929 Northumberland

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  930 Notts

  3·0

  58

  3·0

  63

  0

  —

  0·0

  —

  931 Oxfordshire

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0·2

  32

  0·2

  38

  932 Shropshire

  6·9

  45

  14·0

  42

  0

  —

  0·8

  31

  933 Somerset

  1·4

  61

  1·4

  65

  0·6

  29

  0·6

  33

  934 Staffordshire

  3·8

  54

  6·3

  55

  0

  —

  0

  41

  935 Suffolk

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  936 Surrey

  22·8

  16

  22·8

  23

  0·8

  27

  1·6

  24

  937 Warwickshire

  17·0

  26

  18·8

  34

  0

  —

  0

  —

  448 449

  LEA Name

  Percentage of secondary pupils in GM schools as at July 1993

  Rank

  Percentage of secondary pupils in GM

  Rank

  938 West Sussex

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  939 Wiltshire

  4·4

  51

  8·8

  47

  0·8

  26

  1·7

  19

  Number of GM relevant LEAs

  61

  65

  35

  41

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in how many ballots on grant-maintained status where a simple majority of parents voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status the margin between the percentage voting yes and the percentage voting no has been 60:40 or closer; and, of these, how many (i) have been approved, (ii) have been rejected and (iii) have not yet received a decision from him.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 127 (13 per cent.) of the 963 ballots which had resulted in a majority in favour of applying for self-governing (GM) status as at 21 July, 60 per cent. of voters or less voted "yes"; 94 of these applications have been approved, four have been rejected, and my right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision on the remaining 29.

  DFE seminars for TECs: table showing numbers of invitees and attendees1 and costs2 by region

  North-west

  North and North-east

  East Anglia and East Midlands

  South-east

  West Midlands

  London

  South-west

  TECs

  Invitees

  42

  42

  42

  24

  30

  27

  19

  Attendees

  39

  37

  38

  17

  23

  25

  19

  LEAs

  Invitees

  19

  19

  12

  10

  11

  33

  8

  Attendees

  19

  19

  10

  5

  9

  25

  8

  Colleges and schools

  Invitees

  5

  11

  8

  8

  8

  8

  10

  Attendees

  5

  11

  5

  7

  4

  8

  9

  Government Departments, Further Education Funding Council, OFSTED

  Invitees

  15

  14

  17

  15

  14

  14

  17

  Attendees

  13

  14

  15

  15

  13

  14

  14

  Cost (£)

  3,344

  5,188

  5,112

  4,312

  5,175

  8,597

  5,559

  1 Precise figures for attendance are not available; the figures are based on final acceptances.

  2 The cost figures include the cost of facilitators and consultancy support utilised after the first seminar in the North-west.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  potatoes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement outlining the implications for producers within the United Kingdom of European Commission proposals on member state aid to potato producers.

  Mr. Jack
  The European Commission's proposals for a common organisation of the market in potatoes would end national support arrangements. If adopted in their present form, this would mean the end of the planting controls and intervention buying arrangements which form part of the Potato Marketing Scheme. The Council of Ministers has yet to make a decision on the proposal. My right hon. Friend stated on 24 June at columns 391–96 the current
  450

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the purpose of the recent Department for Education regional conferences for the directors and board members of the TECs; and if he will list in each(a) the number of invitations sent, and to which categories of invitee, (b) the numbers from each category attending and (c) the cost of the conference.

  Mr. Boswell
  The series of regional seminars run by the Department for Education between July 1992 and May 1993 was designed principally for TEC chairmen and TEC business directors with an interest in education. The purpose was to bring TECs up to date on key education issues and policies; to develop a better understanding between the Department and TECs of their respective roles; and to bring together representatives of the education service with TECs at local level.

  The information requested for each is in the table.

  policy on the United Kingdom potato marketing scheme and our negotiating position on a Community regime for potatoes.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, by county and showing their location, all the fur farms currently operating, the type of fur-bearing animals they are farming and the number of each type of fur-bearing animals in each of the fur farms.

  Mr. Soames
  Information is not collected on the farming for fur of animals other than mink. Information on individual mink farms, including the exact location and numbers of mink kept, are not divulged. There are at present 13 mink farms operating in England in which approximately 33,000 mink are being kept for fur. These establishments are situated in the following counties:
  451

  Number

  Northumberland

  1

  Lancashire

  4

  West Yorkshire

  2

  Staffordshire

  1

  Suffolk

  2

  Hampshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Cornwall

  1

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number of times each British registered fishing vessel formerly Spanish registered or owned by Spanish individuals or companies landed fish in British ports in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  Information relating to the fishing operations of individual vessels is confidential. The table contains details of the total number of landings into British ports by the vessels concerned.

  1991

  1992

  19931

  Total number of landings

  284

  371

  95

  Vessels making live or more landings

  9

  18

  3

  Vessels making less than five landings

  37

  35

  29

  1 To date.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the current holders of 10 m and under fishing licences for area VII F and G.

  Mr. Jack
  The 10 metre and under licences are general authorities to fish in all appropriate EC waters. All holders of such licences are therefore authorised to fish in area VII F and G. At 1 July 1993 Fisheries Departments had issued 5,193 10 metre and under licences; these could only be listed at disproportionate cost.

  Salmonella
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether existing arrangements for the payment of compensation to producers whose poultry breeding flocks are slaughtered because of salmonella will continue when directive 92/117/EEC is implemented in Great Britain.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Producers will continue to receive compensation for poultry breeding flocks slaughtered because of salmonella when Directive 92/117/EEC is implemented in Great Britain. However, the Government has reviewed the existing legislative provisions for the slaughter of poultry, in particular schedule 3(5) of the Animal Health Act 1981, and concluded that they form an unsatisfactory basis for dealing with salmonella in poultry in that the absence of clinical signs in the live bird makes it difficult to distinguish between birds which are infected and those that are not. The Government believe that the principle of distinguishing between infected birds and non-infected birds for the purpose of assessing compensation is correct but that the existing legislation provides an insufficiently clear basis on which to do so.
  452
  The Government therefore intend to bring forward proposals as soon as parliamentary time permits and after full consultation with the industry, to amend the Animal Health Act 1981 so as to provide a clear statutory basis for the payment of compensation for birds compulsorily slaughtered because of salmonella. In the meantime, the Government proposed to pay full compensation for all birds compulsorily slaughtered because of salmonella, including those slaughtered since the policy was introduced in March 1989. Payment made since March 1989 will be adjusted accordingly.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements she is making to implement directive 92/117/EEC with regard to the control of salmonella in poultry.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries Order 1993, which brings existing arrangements for the testing and registration of poultry breeding flocks into line with those required under Directive 92/117/EEC, was made today and will come into force on 30 August.

  The size of breeding flocks subject to controls is to be raised from 25 to 250 birds. While the bacteriological testing arrangements for grandparent and elite flocks remain unchanged, those for parent breeding flocks are to be eased so that samples are taken and tested at the owner's expense every two weeks instead of every week as at present, and under the supervision of the Ministry every eight weeks instead of every four weeks as at present. Existing statutory testing requirements for breeding flocks of turkeys, ducks and geese will be replaced by voluntary arrangements. There will no longer be a requirement to test poultry breeding flocks for Salmonella pullorum.

  Breeding flocks of domestic fowl, turkeys, ducks and geese comprising 250 or more birds of a single species and hatcheries with an incubator capacity of more than 1,000 eggs will be required to register with Agriculture Departments on a simple "once and for all" basis and will no longer be subject to an annual inspection of the premises.

  The Government remain committed to firm action against salmonella and continued protection for the consumer while avoiding disproportionate burdens on producers. These changes, which have been the subject of full consultation with interested organisations, are being introduced in advance of the directive coming into force on 1 January 1994 and taken together with the ending of controls on commercial egg-laying flocks earlier this year will significantly reduce burdens on poultry producers and remove some of the disadvantages they currently bear due to more stringent controls compared with their counterparts in other member states.

DEFENCE

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy personnel are currently serving in sea-going posts; how many will be so serving after the planned reduction in the number of ships in the fleet; and, in each case, what percentage of the personnel strength of the Royal Navy will be in sea-going appointments.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently 18,240 trained RN and WRNS personnel serving in sea-going appointments. This
  453
  represents some 38 per cent. of the total trained manpower. The manpower requirement beyond 1995 will be kept under review in the light of changing circumstances, but it is expected that the proportion of sea-going appointments will remain broadly the same.

  Collision, Irish Sea
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the collision between the fishing trawler Amber Rose from Portavogie harbour and the submarine HMS Oppossum in the Irish sea on 14 July; if the submarine was submerged; and if the submarine's radar system was operational on that date.

  Mr. Hanley
  I can confirm that a minor collision occurred between the Royal Navy submarine HMS Oppossum and the fishing vessel Amber Rose in the Irish sea on 14 July. There were no casualties. HMS Oppossum was on the surface at the time of the collision. An investigation is under way to establish the full facts of the incident.

  RAF Order of Battle
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of the current RAF order of battle.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to annex D of the 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates, "Defending Our Future" (Cm. 2270).

  Radiation Sample Analysis
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 710, what were the criteria adopted in choosing British Nuclear Fuels for the radiation sample analysis contract in 1992; and whether the renewal of BNFL's contract followed a process of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Aitken
  BNFL won the sample analysis contract in 1992, following competitive tendering during which it was judged to have offered the best bid in terms of value for money and technical competence. Competitive tendering was not considered appropriate for the 1993 renewal. The need to build up a consistent and reliable database makes it advisable to continue with the same contractor for at least three years, provided the technical performance is satisfactory.

  Non-departmental Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 113–14, whether a register of interests of appointees to the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Ministry is maintained by (a) his Department and (b) the various bodies; and whether such registers of interests are available for public scrutiny.

  Mr. Hanley
  A register of interests of appointees is not maintained centrally by my Department or by any of the executive non-departmental bodies. The Services Sound and Vision Corporation (SSVC) is, however, both a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. Its directors are required under company law to disclose any other directorships they hold. These disclosures are registered at Companies house and therefore available for public scrutiny.
  454

  Depots (Rail Connections)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's depots had rail connections in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c)

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of Ministry of Defence depots with rail connections was 37 in 1990, 21 in 1991 and 20 in1992.

  D Notice System
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 26 October 1992,Official Report, column 510, whether the review of the D notice system has been completed.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the management of the D notice system lies with the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee (DPBC), a joint forum of Government and media representatives chaired by the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence. The DPBC decided last year to expand its annual review of the D notices to consider the purpose, scope and operation of the system in the light of international changes and the increased emphasis of openness in Government.

  I understand that the DPBC has approved a number of significant changes to the D notice system as a result of the review. The number of notices has been reduced from eight to six and their content and style has been revised to make them more relevant and user-friendly. The notices will now be known as defence advisory notices, and the DPBC has become the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, better to reflect the voluntary and advisory nature of the system.

  The new notices are published today for the first time, with their introduction and an explanation of how the system works, in an open government document. They will come into effect on 1 August. Their publication is intended to promote a better understanding of the system and to be a contribution to greater openness. I am placing a copy of the open government document in the Library of the House.

  Military Service Defence Agency
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Military Survey Defence Agency for 1993–94.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Military Survey Defence Agency key targets for 1993–94 are:

  1. To deliver 3,600 man-days of uniformed personnel in support of operations.

  2. To deliver 26,000 man-days of uniformed personnel in support of exercises and military training.

  3. To implement the military survey modernisation project by starting the installation check and test phase by 1 October 1993.

  4. To meet the following targets for pre-planned production and services:

  (a) originate or revise 425 maps/charts;

  (b) produce 820 digital geographic products;

  (c) reproduce 7,000,000 copies of maps/charts;

  (d) issue from stock 7,000,000 copies of maps/charts.

  5. To carry out 5,300 man days training for students from outside military survey.

  6. To make further efficiency improvements to the value of 2·5 per cent. of the budget.

  7. To keep within the cash allocation of £48,870,000 for 1993–94.

  455

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation Defence Support Agency for 1993–94.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Director General Aircraft (Navy), acting as the owner of the agency on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence under the terms of the agency's framework document has set the following key targets for this financial year:

  Quantity:
  To complete 100 per cent. of the funded task as detailed in DGA(N)'s tri-service schedule of identified repair work.

  Quality:
  To reduce by 2 per cent. the weighted number of allied quality assurance publication non-conformances in 1993–94.

  Timelines:
  To complete more than 85 per cent. of contracts on time in 1993–94 and to increase this figure to over 95 per cent. by the end of 1994–95.

  Cost:
  To maintain the cost of direct output units at its current level throughout 1993–94 and to achieve a 7·5 per cent. reduction over the 1991–92 launch values by the end of 1994–95.

  Efficiency:
  To improve the efficiency index (measured work content divided by the measured time taken) from 61·4 per cent. in 1992–93 to 63·3 per cent. by the end of 1993–94.

  Productivity:
  To improve productivity from the achieved 1992–93 figure of 560 to an average of 575 direct output units per employee by the end of 1993–94.

  These targets are similar to those set for last year, but the way the productivity and timeliness targets have been set has changed. The target for productivity for 1992–93 was calculated on the basis of overtime that could not be met from within the available funding. The target for timeliness for 1992–93 was specifically developed as a new method of measuring contract performance for the agency, but there were no historical data to provide a realistic baseline. Nevertheless, improvements of 2 per cent. and 18·3 per cent. were achieved in productivity and timeliness last year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) what has been the cost, at current prices, of making the Palace of Westminster more accessible to people with disabilities, both users of the Palace and visitors, since 1 September 1970; and if he will set out the details and cost of each adaptation since that date;

  (2) what estimates have been made of the costs of adapting the Palace of Westminster to make it fully accessible to people with disabilities, both as users of the Palace and as visitors; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if, in considering proposals for adapting the Palace of Westminster to make it fully accessible to people with disabilities, both users of the Palace and visitors, he will examine the possibility of phasing the costs over a period of three, five and seven years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The Palace of Westminster's Victorian design presents fundamental obstacles to easy access and 456
  movement of persons with disabilities. Improvements have nevertheless been made in certain areas, such as the construction and adaptation of lavatories, the installation of a stairlift to the Grand Committee Room in Westminster Hall, and the provision of sound induction loops in the public galleries of the Chamber and a number of Committee Rooms. It is not possible, however, separately to identify all such improvements or their cost.

  The Accommodation and Works Committee has recently received and given preliminary consideration to a comprehensive consultants' report containing a number of recommendations for improvement. It is to be given further consideration in the autumn with the benefit of advice from the all-party group on disablement and from English Heritage. It is hoped that a phased programme of improvements can be agreed which will be incorporated into the programme of works. Estimates for each of the report's recommendations are being prepared.

  Consumers Association
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating the Consumers Association to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 1 to 5 November.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Islamic Dress Code
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer on 19 July,Official Report, column 20, if he will seek the views of the female United Kingdom citizens currently employed in the British embassy in Tehran on the imposition of the Islamic dress code.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are well aware of their views.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 20, (1) if he will discuss with other non-Islamic countries having embassies in Tehran the imposition of the Islamic dress code on female diplomatic staff, with a view to establishing a common position.

  (2) if he will now make representations to the Government of Iran regarding the obligation of female diplomats to conform to the Islamic dress code.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's embassy in Tehran is in touch with other missions in Tehran about a range of issues. It is accepted practice among the diplomatic community, male and female, in Iran to abide by the Islamic dress code.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 20, regarding the imposition of the Islamic dress code on female diplomatic staff in Tehran, on what occaions male diplomatic staff have been obliged by foreign Governments to comply with dress codes; and if he will give details.
  457
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All diplomatic personnel, whether male or female, comply with the appropriate foreign dress code whenever it is necessary to enable them to carry out their duties effectively.

  Religious Freedom, Russia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Yeltsin on the recent amendment of the 1990 law on religious freedom by the Russian Parliament to restrict foreign Christian missionary work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have raised our concerns at a senior level in the President's Administration and in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We have called the amendment, which has not yet received President Yeltson's approval, a retrograde step and have drawn attention to Russia's international commitments under the CSCE in relation to religious freedom and the free passage of information.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the sum of money owed to the Hong Kong Government, and by whom, for the cost of keeping the Vietnamese boat people.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) currently owes the Hong Kong Government approximately 90 million United States dollars for the care and maintenance of refugees in the territory.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when it is expected that all remaining Vietnamese boat people at present being held in detention in Hong Kong will have been repatriated to Vietnam.

  Mr. Goodlad
  If the 1993 rates of voluntary repatriation and refugee resettlement can be maintained, and there are no more new arrivals, the Hong Kong camps could be empty within three years.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people in total had been repatriated to Vietnam from Hong Kong up to 10 July.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As at 1 July (the latest figures available), 29,893 migrants had returned home voluntarily. A further 627 had been returned under the orderly repatriation programme.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people were still being held in detention in Hong Kong as of 10 July.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As at 1 July (the latest figures available), the Hong Kong camp population was as follows:
  458

  Number

  Refugees

  2,231

  Screened out (after appeal)

  24,143

  Awaiting screening or results

  14,353

  Total

  40,727

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Japanese Government about supporting an indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not recently discussed this issue with the Japanese Government. However, Japan agreed to the G7 summit political declaration which supported as an objective the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Cyprus
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings have been held by Her Majesty's Government with leading political members of(a) the Greek Cypriot community and (b) the Turkish Cypriot community, over the past five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministers have held many meetings with leading Cypriots, including Cypriot Ministers, in this period. They meet more Greek Cypriots, reflecting in particular the size of the Greek Cypriot ethnic community in the United Kingdom and our policy on recognition. The purported declaration of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" in 1983, placed substantial constraints on ministerial level meetings. Contacts with leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community are maintained chiefly through Her Majesty's high commissioner in Nicosia.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent judgment by the European Court of Justice confirming Gibraltar's suspension from an EC air services directive (89/463).

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The judgment has no implications for our title over Gibraltar or for the status of the 1987 airport agreement. We continue to believe that implementation of the agreement, updated as necessary to reflect subsequent directives, would be in the best interests of Gibraltar. It would in particular remove Gibraltar's suspension from EC air liberalisation measures.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent judgment by the European Court of Justice confirming Gibraltar's suspension from the EC air services directive (89/463).

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The judgment has no implications for our title over Gibraltar or for the status of the
  459
  1987 airport agreement. We continue to believe that implementation of the agreement, updated as necessary to reflect subsequent directives, would be in the best interests of Gibraltar. It would in particular remove Gibraltar's suspension from EC air liberalisation measures.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount in cash terms and in real terms of housing benefit paid to people(a) aged 16 and 17 years, (b) aged 18 to 24 years and (c) aged 25 years and over for each year from 1980–81 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Burt
  Housing benefit expenditure by age has been available only since 1990. Expenditure figures for 16 and 17-year-olds are not reliable. The available information is in the table.

  £ million

  Age under 25

  Age 25 and over

  Annualised 1990–91 based on 31 May 1990 data1

  cash terms

  492

  3,928

  real terms

  544

  4,337

  Annualised 1991–92 based on 31 May 1991 data1

  cash terms

  628

  4,675

  real terms

  650

  4,838

  11992–93 prices

  Note:

  Source: Figures derived from the housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample of housing benefit cases taken at a point in time (31 May) each year. They are not annual expenditure figures as published in the departmental report of "The Growth of Social Security".

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of housing benefit paid to people(a) aged 16 and 17 years, (b) aged 18 to 24 years and (c) aged 25 years and over as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year from 1980–81 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Median equivalised income in April 1993 prices for the bottom 20 per cent, by household family type

  1979

  1981

  1987

  1988–89

  1990–91

  Before housing costs

  Pensioner couple

  88

  93

  100

  100

  98

  Single pensioner

  88

  94

  97

  93

  95

  Couple with children

  103

  92

  99

  102

  97

  Couple without children

  128

  129

  120

  131

  137

  Single with children

  86

  90

  95

  95

  95

  Single without children

  111

  108

  109

  109

  103

  After housing costs

  Pensioner couple

  75

  79

  86

  86

  86

  Single pensioner

  81

  84

  86

  84

  88

  Couple with children

  86

  75

  78

  80

  74

  Couple without children

  110

  109

  97

  108

  113

  Single with children

  71

  75

  77

  72

  74

  Single without children

  96

  89

  84

  81

  78

  460

  Housing Benefit expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product

  Percentage

  1980–81

  0·7

  1981–82

  1·0

  1982–83

  1·1

  1983–84

  1·2

  1984–85

  1·3

  1985–86

  1·3

  1986–87

  1·3

  1987–88

  1·2

  1988–89

  1·1

  1989–90

  1·1

  1990–91

  0·9

  1991–92

  1·0

  1992–93

  1·2

  The GDP information cannot be provided for particular age bands.

  Note: The source housing benefit expenditure figures are taken from table 9a of "The Growth of Social Security". For years prior to 1988 these include expenditure related to housing costs paid as part of supplementary benefit. The figure for 1989–90 includes community charge rebate.

  Households Below Average Income
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 1992,Official Report, column 948, what was the average equivalised income at April 1993 prices for the poorest 20 per cent. from the latest households below average income analysis, before and after housing costs in 1979, 1981, 1987, 1988–89 and 1990–91 for (i) a pensioner couple, (ii) a single pensioner, (iii) a couple with children, (iv) a couple without children, (v) a single adult with children and (vi) a single adult without children.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables. All estimates are subject to sampling error which may affect the validity of comparisons between groups at a point in time and over time. Results for singles and couples will be affected by a discontinuity related to cohabiting. Further information is provided in appendix 10 of Households Below Average Income—1979–1990–91, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioner households have been dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their income in each of the last 10 years for which information is available.
  461
  Mr. Hague
  Such information as is readily available is in the table. Comparable data for 1980 and 1982 to 1986 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The proportion of pensioner units dependent upon state benefits 1979 to 1990–91

  Benefit income makes up: at least 75 per cent, of total gross income

  Year

  Per cent.

  1979

  62

  1981

  61

  1987

  55

  1988

  54

  1989

  53

  1990

  50

  1990–91

  50

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner units are defined as single people above state pension age and couples in which the husband is above state pension age.

  2. "1990–91" denotes estimates from a combined sample of the 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys (FESs). One quarter of the 1991 FES sample has been omitted because of inadequate data on Community Charge Benefit receipt following the delayed issue of Community Charge bills in April 1991. As a result the sample size in that year is too small to provide reliable estimates of pensioners' incomes. For this reason the remaining data for 1991 has been combined with that for 1990.

  3. Estimates of the proportion of pensioner units who are dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their gross income include those with no income other than state benefits.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of all pensioners, single pensioners and pensioner couples have total incomes of(a) £1, (b) £2, (c) £3, (d) £4 and (e) £5 above income support levels.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table. As this question seeks to establish pensioners' incomes in relation to income support levels the criteria for assessing pensioner entitlement to income support have been used i.e. "pensioners" are taken to be those aged 60 or over, and the average income bands exclude income derived from sources which would not be taken into account for income support (e.g. housing benefit or attendance allowance).

  Number of pensioners whose income for income support purposes is within a banded range of their income support levels

  (000s)

  Range

  Singles

  Couples

  Total

  £0–£1

  65

  20

  90

  £1–£2

  45

  20

  70

  £2–£3

  65

  25

  90

  £3–£4

  60

  30

  90

  £4–£5

  65

  25

  90

  Proportion of pensioners whose income for income support purposes is within a banded range of their income support levels

  Range

  Singles per cent.

  Couples per cent.

  Total per cent.

  £0–£1

  1

  1

  1

  £1–£2

  1

  1

  1

  £2–£3

  1

  1

  1

  £3–£4

  1

  1

  1

  £4–£5

  1

  1

  1

  Source

  Both tables are based on data drawn from the 1989 to 1990 and
  462
  1991 Family Expenditure Surveys modeled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels.

  Notes:

  1. Caseloads have been rounded to the nearest 5,000. Figures in the first two columns may not sum to the total in the final column because of rounding.

  2. Each percentage gives the proportion of the total pensioner caseload for the column.

  3. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  4. Pensioner benefit unit defined as either:

  (a) Single person aged 60 or over

  (b) Couple where either person is aged 60 +

  5. Totals include pensioners with capital exceeding the upper earnings limit for income support.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of all pensioners had no income from any source other than from state benefits for each of the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Mr. Hague
  Such information as is readily available is in the table. Comparable data for 1980 and 1982 to 1986 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensioner unit dependent upon state benefits 1979 to 1990–91 Pensioner units with no income other than state benefits

  Year

  Number (000s)

  Proportion (per cent.)

  1979

  1,470

  23

  1981

  1,420

  21

  1987

  1,110

  16

  1988

  1,170

  17

  1989

  1,010

  14

  1990

  1,090

  16

  1990–91

  1,040

  15

  Notes:

  (1) Pensioner units are defined as single people above state pension age and couples in which the husband is above state pension age.

  (2) "1990–91" denotes estimates from a combined sample of the 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys (FESs). One quarter of the 1991 FES sample has been omitted because of inadequate data on community charge benefit receipt following the delayed issue of community charge bills in April 1991. As a result the sample size in that year is too small to provide reliable estimates of pensioners' incomes. For this reason the remaining data for 1991 has been combined with that for 1990.

  (3) Estimates of the proportion of pensioner units who are dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their gross income include those with no income other than state benefits.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the actual weekly amount received by all pensioners as(a) total social security benefits, (b) occupational pensions and (c) savings income for each of the last 10 years; what were the gross and net weekly total figures; and what was the real terms increase over the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Mr. Hague
  Such information as is readily available is in the tables. Comparable data for 1980 and 1982 to 1986 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on all sources of pensioners' income has been included (i.e. earnings and "other" income) to enable gross totals to be arrived at.
  463

  The average incomes of pensioner units by source, 1979 to 1990–91

  Income source

  1979

  1981

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1990–91

  Real income growth 1979 to 1990–91 (Percentage)

  (a) Pensioner couples

  Earnings

  24·20

  19·00

  16·50

  25·90

  21·10

  17·90

  20·00

  -17

  Benefit income

  81·20

  85·20

  93·80

  91·00

  90·10

  92·70

  94·40

  14

  Investment income

  16·20

  23·10

  41·00

  40·80

  37·70

  41·90

  45·10

  179

  Occupational pension

  30·20

  30·50

  48·00

  58·10

  51·10

  48·90

  54·40

  80

  Other income

  0·80

  0·60

  0·80

  0·30

  0·50

  0·70

  0·90

  19

  Total gross income

  152·50

  158·30

  200·10

  216·00

  200·40

  202·10

  214·80

  41

  Deductions

  22·00

  23·10

  34·40

  38·40

  32·70

  33·00

  33·60

  53

  Total net income

  130·50

  135·20

  165·70

  177·60

  167·70

  169·20

  181·20

  39

  Total net income (after housing costs)

  111·60

  117·10

  146·50

  158·70

  152·30

  159·60

  170·90

  53

  (b) Single pensioners

  Earnings

  5·50

  4·30

  3·30

  3·80

  4·60

  3·80

  5·40

  -1

  Benefit income

  53·70

  57·90

  64·00

  62·90

  61·50

  61·50

  62·30

  16

  Investment income

  8·60

  9·90

  14·90

  16·00

  19·00

  21·20

  21·60

  151

  Occupational pension

  9·40

  10·90

  19·30

  19·10

  19·40

  19·50

  20·20

  115

  Other income

  0·50

  0·40

  1·10

  0·50

  0·40

  1·00

  0·80

  50

  Total gross income

  77·70

  83·50

  102·60

  102·30

  104·90

  107·10

  110·20

  42

  Deductions

  9·50

  10·30

  16·10

  16·30

  16·80

  15·60

  15·40

  61

  Total net income

  68·10

  73·20

  86·50

  86·00

  88·10

  91·50

  94·80

  39

  Total net income (after housing costs)

  55·40

  59·60

  70·40

  70·10

  73·80

  79·60

  82·50

  49

  (c) All pensioner units

  Earnings

  11·90

  9·50

  8·00

  11·70

  10·50

  9·10

  10·90

  -9

  Benefit income

  63·20

  67·60

  74·70

  73·00

  71·90

  73·10

  74·20

  17

  Investment income

  11·20

  14·60

  24·30

  25·00

  25·80

  28·90

  30·30

  171

  Occupational pension

  16·60

  17·90

  29·60

  33·20

  30·90

  30·40

  32·90

  98

  Other income

  0·60

  0·50

  1·00

  0·40

  0·50

  0·90

  0·90

  37

  Total gross income

  103·50

  110·10

  137·70

  143·30

  139·50

  142·40

  149·10

  44

  Deductions

  13·80

  14·90

  22·70

  24·30

  22·60

  22·00

  22·20

  60

  Total net income

  89·70

  95·20

  115·10

  119·00

  116·90

  120·30

  127·00

  42

  Total net income (after housing costs)

  74·80

  80·00

  97·80

  102·00

  102·20

  109·30

  115·40

  54

  Notes:

  (1) Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  (2) All averages are means, and all estimates of real growth are based upon mean amounts.

  (3) All figures are before housing costs unless otherwise stated.

  (4) Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age and couples in which the husband is over state pension age.

  (5) '1990–91' denotes estimates from a combined sample of the 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys (FESs). One quarter of the 1991 FES sample has been omitted because of inadequate data on Community Charge Benefit receipt following the delayed issue of Community Charge bills in April 1991. As a result the sample size in that year is too small to provide reliable estimates of pensioners' incomes. For this reason the remaining data for 1991 has been combined with that for 1990.

  (6) All amounts are at January 1991 prices.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information the Benefits Agency collects concerning the nature of the disabilities of persons in receipt of invalidity benefit by Benefits Agency district in connection with his review of Government expenditure on benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Benefits Agency district offices obtain information on the disease or disorder giving rise to a claim for invalidity benefit from the medical statement issued by the medical practitioner. This information is not collected centrally. District offices have not been asked to 464
  provide additional information on the nature of the disabilities of people receiving invalidity benefit in connection with the long-term review of expenditure.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women have had their invalidity benefit restored on the basis of hardship in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in the most recent period of time for which records are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member shortly with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  465
  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 22 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 women have had their Invalidity Benefit restored on the basis of hardship in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in the most recent period of time for which records are available.
  The information has been obtained in the format requested. The statistics relating to the number of women who have had their Invalidity Benefit paid on the basis of hardship following the decision of a Social Security Commissioner on 1 April 1992 in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland are shown below:

  Number

  (a) Strathclyde

  1215

  (b) Scotland

  1228

  1 Of these totals, 203 cases are contained within one District (Clyde Valley District) which also received a much higher number of applications. The high incidence of hardship cases within this District is being investigated.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give the numbers of persons in receipt of invalidity benefit in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Benefits Agency district for each year since 1987;

  (2) if he will give the current number of persons in receipt of invalidity benefit in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Benefit Agency district.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of invalidity Benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the Chief Executive of the 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 Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 22 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 Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will give the numbers of persons in receipt of invalidity benefit in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Benefit Agency district for each year since 1987 and the current number of persons in receipt of invalidity benefit in that district.
  The information is not available in the format requested because the Benefits Agency was only set up in April 1991 and it is not possible to provide the information requested prior to this date. Separate statistics were not kept for invalidity benefit claimants until May 1991 and a yearly count of the number of recipients is not maintained. The latest available figures show that there were 12,614 people claiming invalidity benefit in the Agency's Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district at the last working day of June 1993. The figures on the last working day of June 1992 and June 1991 are 11,790 and 10,421 respectively.
  The statistics provided include a few customers who have claimed but are not receiving invalidity benefit, eg. because there is underlying entitlement which has been extinguished by the payment of a higher overlapping benefit or where termination action has not been completed. These figures were obtained from a 100 per cent. clerical count of cases in the District/Benefit office.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  466

  Means Testing
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is intended to amend the level of assumed income from capital that is taken into account in calculating means-tested benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mrs. Gordon) on 22 July.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what restrictions are placed upon the payment of unemployment benefit in other EC states.

  Mr. Burt
  Common requirements for payment of unemployment benefit in other EC countries are that a person is involuntarily unemployed, capable of work, registered and available for work.

  Age, period of past employment and contribution record are other factors governing entitlement or duration of payment of benefit.

  More information can be found in "Social Protection in the Member States of the Community," a copy of which is in the Library.

  State Pension
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the regulations covering the start date for payment of the state pension following the attainment of retirement age; and what are the regulations covering the termination date of payment of the state pension.

  Mr. Hague
  Regulation 16 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987—SI 1987/1968—governs both the start and termination dates for payment of retirement pension.

  Accommodation Payments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to secure that payments for rent in advance and deposits for accommodation are available quickly and reliably from the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 22 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 asking what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to secure that payments for rent in advance and deposits for accommodation are available quickly and reliably from the Benefits Agency.
  I should explain that help with returnable deposits for accommodation has been excluded from the Social Fund (SF) by direction of the Secretary of State.
  However, for rent in advance, help from the SF may be given in the form of a Budgeting Loan (BL), where the applicant has been in receipt of Income Support for 26 weeks,

  467
  or a Crisis Loan (CL) in other cases; these loans are interest-free. CLs are subject to an overriding condition that the payment is necessary to avoid serious risk to health or safety. An exception to this rule is where applicants who receive a Community Care Grant on returning to the community, after a period of institutional or residential care, also need rent in advance.
  Decisions on SF applications are made independently by specially trained Social Fund Officers (SFOs). While SFOs are subject to the law and Secretary of State's directions, they still have considerable discretion about whether to make payment, having regard to the circumstances of an individual applicant. These will include consideration of the nature, extent and urgency of the need.
  The Secretary of State has set a number of targets for the Benefits Agency one of which is clearance times for budgeting loan applications. The Agency has continued to meet this target, indeed performance improved over the year 1992–93 by two working days, emphasising the Agency's commitment to customer care. Most CL applications continue to be cleared on the day they are made, reflecting the urgent nature of such an application.
  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.

  Flooding, Llandudno
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of applicants to the crisis fund following the Llandudno flooding were made from people in receipt of invalidity benefit; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many applications to the crisis fund he received in the aftermath of the Llandudno flooding; what percentage of these have been granted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 22 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 Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many applications to the crisis fund he received in the aftermath of the Llandudno flooding; what percentage of these have been granted and what percentage of these were from people in receipt of invalidity benefit.
  The Benefits Agency District of North Wales Coast, which serves the area affected by the flooding, received 187 applications for a Crisis Loan from victims of the flood. All of these applications resulted in an award. Eight of the applications (4·3 per cent.) were from people in receipt of Invalidity Benefit.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what minimum standards of service he has approved for customers of the disability living allowance unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has approved the charter standard statement which was published today by the Benefits Agency. We welcome this 468
  statement, which sets out the business of the unit, advice on contacting staff and the minimum standards of service customers of the unit can now expect.

  The publication of the statement underlines and further extends the Benefits Agency's strategy of maintaining and improving standards of service to its customers by establishing targets for the handling and clearance of claims and answering the telephone and correspondence.

  By the end of June 874,000 claims for disability living allowance had been made. More than 848,000 claims have been cleared, resulting in 502,000 awards. Early difficulties following the introduction of disability living allowance have now been redressed and I congratulate the unit's staff on their efforts to overcome these problems.

  A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the annual reports and accounts for each of his next steps agencies will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have agreed that the 1992–93 reports and accounts for the four social security agencies operating last year should be published as follows: yesterday those for the Information Technology Services Agency, today those for the Benefits Agency, on 30 July those for the Contributions Agency, and at the end of September those for the Resettlement Agency. Copies of all four reports will be placed in the Library.

  The Child Support Agency began operations in April this year. Its first annual report will be for 1993–94.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average sum now paid out annually in occupational pensions for(a) males and (b) females.

  Mr. Hague
  The average amounts of occupational pension paid in 1990–91 are estimated as £4,200 per annum for males and £2,015 for females at January 1991 prices.

  Note Source: 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people who have opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme into personal pensions and have now allowed those pensions to lapse.

  Mr. Hague
  Personal pensions used for opting out of SERPS do not lapse. Membership continues until cancelled either by the individual concerned or by the trustees or managers of the scheme.

  Income Distribution
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the income distribution of the recipients of(a) contributory benefits, (b) non-contributory benefits, (c) means-tested benefits, (d) child benefit and (e) retirement pension broken down into (i) equivalised income bands before and after housing costs and (ii) quintiles on an equivalised basis.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 15 July 1993]: The information has been placed in the Library.
  469

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Environmental Economic Indicators
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been undertaken by his Department into the adoption of environmentally related macroeconomic indicators.

  Mr. Nelson
  Initial research has been carried out by the Central Statistical Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 24 February 1993 at column 592.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what severance pay Mr. Jacques Attali is to receive following his resignation as president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; what view the Government have expressed on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Following his resignation as President of the EBRD, Mr. Attali has decided to waive the compensation to which his contract would have entitled him.

  Crown Estates Commissioners
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current salary of each full-time and part-time Crown Estates Commissioner.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The first commissioner works part time and has a current salary of £33,595. The second commissioner works full time and his salary, including bonus, is £91,046. The remaining six commissioners all serve part time: two are paid £12,455 a year and four are paid £10,455 a year.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers of staff by grade who are employed in Customs and Excise in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Sir John Cope
  The number of staff by grade who are employed in automatic data processing functional specialism is as follows:

  Number

  Grade 4

  1

  Grade 5

  3

  Grade 6

  5

  Grade 7

  26

  Senior executive officers

  155

  Higher executive officers

  300

  Executive officers

  166

  Administrative officers

  97

  Administrative assistants

  350

  470

WALES

  KONVER Programme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make representations to the European Community to secure that the Fishguard and Haverfordwest travel-towork areas become eligible for money allocated through the Konver programme.

  Mr. Redwood
  Both Fishguard and Haverfordwest travel-to-work areas are eligible for consideration under the KONVER initiative and will feature as such in the operational programme being prepared by the United Kingdom Government for submission to the EC by 31 August 1993.

  Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to collect annual data on the estimated number of children with disabilities in Wales by region and by nature of disability.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Children Act 1989 requires each local authority to keep a register of disabled children in their areas. There are no plans to collect data centrally on the number of children with disabilities.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement outlining what action will be undertaken by his Department resulting from meetings with the Wales Council for the Disabled to discuss the information award scheme.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As a result of meetings with the Wales Council for the Disabled and the Welsh Consumer Council during 1992, the published information for users, carers and the general public initiative was set up to run one year. The initiative is nearing its completion and awards will be made on 26 July.

  Diretoria Conference
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which members of his Department attended the Directoria conference in Brussels between 2 to 4 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. I understand, however, that certain officials from Welsh local authorities attended. Directoria is a meeting for local authority representatives.

  Youth Organisations
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce a target date for reaching his Department's efficiency target in respect of the timetable for informing all national voluntary youth organisations of their grant level.

  Mr. Redwood
  The target date for notifying national voluntary youth organisations in Wales of their grant levels for 1994–95 is 31 January 1994.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of recorded cases of organophosphate contamination of humans directly attributable to the handling of sheep dips in Wales in each year since 1985.
  471
  Mr. Redwood
  The Government operate the suspected adverse reaction scheme, under which persons who believe that they may have suffered a reaction to sheep dip are encouraged to report full details to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The number of suspected adverse reaction reports made under the scheme in relation to Wales each year between 1985 and 16 July 1993, which is the latest date for which figures are available, are given as follows. The figures relate to the number of reports, not to the number of people involved.

  Number

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  0

  1988

  2

  1989

  0

  1990

  0

  1991

  10

  1992

  25

  1993

  12

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to encourage farmers to report any symptoms of illness or depression suffered during or after the use of sheep dips.

  Mr. Redwood
  A number of initiatives have been put in hand by the Government to help ensure that those who use sheep dip report any suspected adverse reaction to it. Among other measures the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) has for a number of years operated a widely publicised suspected adverse reaction scheme, under which persons who believe they may have suffered from an adverse reaction to sheep dip are encouraged to report full details.

  A letter was sent in April 1991 by the chief medical officer to all medical practitioners in Great Britain making them aware of the issues involved and alerting them to the need to report details of any suspected adverse reaction to sheep dip. A further letter will be sent to all UK medical practitioners shortly giving further advice on the potential hazards which can arise from misuse of these toxic products.

  This letter will draw attention to new leaflets prepared by the National Office of Animal Health and VMD giving detailed guidance on the protection of operators and the environment, including medical advice to doctors and users, and the need to report suspected adverse reactions to the VMD. The leaflet has been circulated to all sheep farmers in the UK and made widely available from HSE, Agricultural Departments and other outlets within the agricultural industry.

  Mineral Extraction
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to secure that all new planning permissions for mineral extraction are limited to no more than 20 years, and the revision of existing permissions with the imposition of a 20-year time limit.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A consultation paper issued last year sought views on ways in which old minerals permissions could be updated and on possible mechanisms for ensuring future periodic updating of minerals permissions generally. The paper set out possible options,472
  one of which was that the current 60-year time limit on pre-1982 minerals permissions be reduced. We hope to consult further on detailed proposals later this year. There are no proposals to change the duration of those minerals permissions granted since 22 February 1982 on which guidance is given in minerals planning guidance note 2.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number and percentages of children under the age of 18 years who were looked after by local authorities in March 1991 and March 1992 in Wales under the care of(a) foster placements, (b) community homes, (c) registered voluntary and private homes, (d) under placement with parent registration and (e) in other accommodation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of children in Wales looked after by local authorities at 31 March 1992 is not yet available. The available information for children in care at 31 March 1991 is given in the following table:

  Accommodation

  Number of children

  Percentage of total

  Foster placements

  1,950

  61·4

  Community homes

  528

  16·6

  Registered voluntary and private homes

  18

  0·6

  Under charge of parent

  434

  13·7

  Other accommodation

  247

  7·8

  Total of all children

  3,177

  100·0

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has on the numbers of children looked after in March 1992 and in care in March 1991 in Wales; and if he will indicate(a) total numbers, (b) those granted care orders, (c) those given section 20 voluntary arrangements, (d) single placements, (e) those given Section 20 under private care arrangements, (f) those on remand or in detention and (g) any other categorisation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of children in Wales looked after by local authorities at 31 March 1992 is not yet available. The available information for children in care at 31 March 1991 is given in the following table:

  Legal Status

  Number of children in care

  On remand, committed or detained

  26

  Subject to interim care order

  106

  Section 2 Child Care Act 1980 (voluntary care)

  1,246

  Under care orders

  1,799

  Total all children

  3,177

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of cases of young people under the age of 17 years running away from residential care homes in Wales, by local authority area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information on children and young people running away from residential care relates to children who have absconded for more than
  473
  one week on the date that the statistics are collected. The latest available information relates to 31 March 1991 and is shown in the following table.

  Aged 16 to 17 years1

  Local Authority

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  1

  —

  1

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  1

  1

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  4

  2

  6

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  5

  3

  8

  1 There were no children aged under 16 years who had absconded for more than one week.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the rate per 1,000 population under the age of 18 years who were removed to a place of safety in each local authority area in Wales in 1987, 1989 and 1991.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Number of Children removed to a place of safety

  Rate per 1,000 population aged under 18 years

  1987

  1989

  1991

  1987

  1989

  1991

  Clwyd

  54

  43

  43

  0·6

  0·5

  0·5

  Dyfed

  40

  20

  95

  0·5

  0·3

  1·2

  Gwent

  18

  27

  31

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  Gwynedd

  19

  31

  10

  0·3

  0·6

  0·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  61

  35

  36

  0·5

  0·3

  0·3

  Powys

  26

  5

  9

  1·0

  0·2

  0·4

  South Glamorgan

  79

  64

  49

  0·8

  0·7

  0·5

  West Glamorgan

  48

  13

  27

  0·6

  0·2

  0·3

  Wales

  345

  238

  300

  0·5

  0·4

  0·5

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the number of children moved to a place of safety who were(a) aged under five years, (b) aged five to nine years, (c) aged 10 to 15 years and (d) aged 16 years and over at the time the orders were made in Wales in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information on the number of children in Wales removed to a place of safety is shown in the following table:

  Age

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Under five years

  115

  144

  160

  Five to 15 years

  111

  160

  132

  16 plus years

  12

  9

  8

  Total all Children

  238

  313

  300

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in Wales were(a) in care in March

  Additions to the register1

  Numbers on the register

  Category of registration

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  31 March 1991

  31 March 1992

  Neglect

  80

  165

  230

  270

  Physical abuse

  270

  353

  468

  481

  Sexual abuse

  93

  203

  148

  237

  474
  1991 and (b) looked after in March 1992 indicating the numbers aged (i) under five, (ii) five and under 10, (iii) 10 and under 16, (iv) 16 and 17 and (v) over 17 years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of children in Wales looked after by local authorities at 31 March 1991 is not yet available. The available information for children in care at 31 March 1991 is given in the following table:

  Aged

  Number

  Under 5 years

  549

  5–9 years

  691

  10–15 years

  1,303

  16–17 years

  625

  Over 17 years

  9

  Total

  3,177

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his policy concerning the Agricultural Wages Board;

  (2) if he will make a statement concerning the future of the Agricultural Wages Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  We will consider our policy on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board in the light of responses to the consultation paper that we issued on 1 July.

  UNCED
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to require all his Department's executive agencies to work within the framework of Agenda 21 of the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has published a consultation paper on the United Kingdom's national strategy for sustainable development, which is due to be completed by the end of the year. The role that different organisations can play in implementing Agenda 21 will be addressed in this strategy.

  Child Protection Registers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were(a) the number of registrations and (b) the numbers on child protection registers in Wales in (i) 1991 and (ii) 1992 indicating the numbers in each instance caused through (1) neglect, (2) physical injury, (3) sexual abuse, (4) emotional abuse and (5) grave concern.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  475

  Additions to the register1

  Numbers on the register

  Category of registration

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  31 March 1991

  31 March 1992

  Emotional abuse

  30

  68

  93

  102

  Grave concern

  898

  593

  1,467

  962

  Other2

  21

  46

  54

  60

  Total

  1,392

  1,428

  2,460

  2,112

  1 Additions to the register may include rcclassifications of existing
  cases as well as new registrations.

  2 Other categories are combinations of the single categories
  (excluding grave concern).

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the number and percentage of(a) registrations, including combination categories, and (b) off the register numbers, including combination categories, in (i) 1991 and (ii) 1992 of children placed on child protection registers in Wales according to the age categories of (1) unborn, (2) under one year old, (3) one to four, (4) five to nine, (5) 10 to 15 and (6) 16 years and over.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information for additions to and removals from child protection registers in Wales is given in the following table. Information is not collected centrally on the ages of children added to or removed from the registers.

  Number

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  Additions1

  1,392

  Removals

  1,253

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  Additions1

  1,428

  Removals

  1,755

  1Additions to the register may include reclassifications of existing cases as well as new registrations.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers and percentages of the population aged under 18 years in Wales on child protection registers who were(a) under place of safety orders, (b) in care, (c) not in care but under supervision orders and (d) none of the above categorisations in 1991; and what were the numbers and percentages (i) under emergency protection orders, (ii) looked after by local authorities, (iii) under supervision orders but not granted emergency protection orders nor looked after by local authorities and (iv) in none of these categorisations who were on child protection registers in Wales in 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the annual maintenance, general management and special management costs per council dwelling in each of the Welsh housing authorities in the latest year for which figures are available; and what the amounts were for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the average rent increases made by each Welsh housing authority since 1987.
  476
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Bullying
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Clwyd to reduce bullying in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, headteachers are responsible for maintaining high standards of discipline and behaviour in schools and for regulating the conduct of their pupils.

  Asthma
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the extent of links in Wales between opencast mining and the incidence of asthma; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1988 the Welsh Office commissioned an independent expert assessment of a report, produced by Drs. Temple, Watkins, Thomas and Rees of Glynneath, which alleged an association between opencast operations and illnesses in the local community. The assessment, by Dr. Peter Elwood, concluded that the data on asthma presented in the Glynneath's doctors' report were flawed and that it was impossible to draw firm conclusions from the report.

  The Government's committee on the medical effects of air pollutants has considered the suggestion that opencast coal mining might have a deleterious effect upon the health of those living nearby. No convincing evidence to support this suggestion has been discovered. A recent study by Dr. Temple was considered by the committee. Although it agreed that the results were compatible with an association between opencast coal mining and asthma consultations, the committee considered that further work would be needed to sustain a causal hypothesis.

  The Government remain interested in the results of good quality research in this field.

  Steroid Abuse
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths in Wales in each year since 1988 are known to have been caused by anabolic steroid abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There were no deaths of Welsh residents in the years 1988 to 1992 where the underlying cause was non-dependent abuse of drugs (other, mixed or unspecified) (ICD 305·9) or poisoning by hormones and synthetic substitutes (androgens and anabolic congeners) (ICD 962·1) and where anabolic steroids were mentioned on the death certificate.
  477

  Welsh Economic Council
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to change the name of the proposed Welsh Economic Council to reflect the priorities set out in Agenda 21 of the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the Welsh housing authorities transferring money from their housing revenue accounts to the general rate fund in 1993–94, giving the amount in each case.

  Assisted places scheme Expenditure in each local authority area in Wales 1985–86 to 1991–92

  Local authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  281,828

  371,706

  476,178

  493,451

  522,212

  568,450

  669,600

  Dyfed

  38,279

  454,400

  55,732

  75,308

  92,650

  140,381

  203,641

  Gwent

  250,402

  323,909

  416,588

  391,774

  451,204

  444,569

  541,027

  Powys

  62,116

  95,473

  131,470

  155,404

  189,033

  244,081

  321,779

  South Glamorgan

  209,858

  274,274

  314,274

  319,099

  334,290

  358,798

  328,763

  Total

  842,483

  1,519,762

  1,394,242

  1,435,036

  1,589,389

  1,756,279

  2,064,810

  Sustainability Research Centre
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Sécretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish a Welsh centre for research into sustainability.

  Mr. Redwood
  Research is one of the issues currently being considered in the Government's preparation of the United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development. In the meantime, I have no plans to establish a Welsh centre for research into sustainability.

  Care and Repair Schemes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are being undertaken by his Department to secure that care and repair schemes are available within all local authority areas in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office is currently considering what funding it should provide for such schemes in the future.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department does not currently assign automatic data processing staff to a functional specialism. Automatic data processing allowances are paid to staff as follows:

  Number

  Senior executive officers

  3

  Higher executive officers

  15

  Executive officers

  24

  Administrative officers

  11

  Administrative assistant

  1

  Total

  54

  478
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No Welsh housing authorities are budgeting to transfer money from their housing revenue accounts to their general funds in 1993–94.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent on the assisted places scheme in each local authority area in Wales since 1985–86.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Payments to independent schools for fee remissions under the assisted places scheme are listed in the following table by local authority area:

  A wide range of other staff are involved in automatic data processing to various degrees.

  Interim Development Orders
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to cancel interim development orders with minimal compensation, where such orders conflict with acknowledged interests of environmental importance.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 enables interim development order permissions to be updated by the imposition of modern environmental conditions which do not attract compensation provided they are consistent with the guidance in minerals planning guidance note 9. We have no plans for further measures to amend compensation provisions.

  Environment Policy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to make a statement outlining the impact of his departmental expenditure on the environment of Wales to coincide with the annual allocation of his Department's block grant.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on the environmental aspects of my Department's main expenditure programme is already included in the annual report for the Welsh Office, the latest version of which was published in February 1993.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish perinatal and infant mortality rates by health authority region in Wales in 1989 and 1991.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 21 June at column 46.
  479

  Rent Arrears.
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local authority the rent arrears owed by local authority tenants for the last year for which figures are available and the total rent owing.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information as at 31 March 1993 is as follows:

  Local Authority Current and Former Tenants' Arrears

  £

  Aberconwy BC

  75,301

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  251,363

  Arfon BC

  108,691

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  103,099

  Brecknock BC

  65,207

  Cardiff CC

  951,585

  Carmarthen DC

  168,368

  Ceredigion DC

  133,000

  Colwyn BC

  68,233

  Cynon Valley BC

  100,000

  Delyn BC

  117,825

  Dinefwr BC

  144,000

  Dwyfor DC

  35,419

  Glyndwr DC

  223,415

  Islwyn BC

  117,000

  Llanelli BC

  218,822

  Lliw Valley BC

  144,292

  Meirionnydd DC

  42,000

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  100,985

  Monmouth BC

  205,675

  Montgomeryshire DC

  104,876

  Neath BC

  224,300

  Newport BC

  686,000

  Ogwr BC

  542,358

  Port Talbot BC

  190,673

  Preseli Pembs DC

  177,000

  Radnorshire DC

  41,500

  Rhondda BC

  260,000

  Rhuddlan BC

  121,100

  Rhymney Valley DC

  495,000

  South Pembs DC

  170,470

  Swansea CC

  1,179,944

  Taff Ely BC

  431,906

  Torfaen BC

  468,157

  Vale of Glam BC

  198,000

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  351,548

  Ynys Mon BC

  160,000

  Total

  9,177,112

  Source: Local authority returns.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his Department's policy on which information produced by his Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as braille, tape or large print;

  (2) what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by his Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as braille, large print or tape.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department's usual policy is to deal individually with requests for information in forms other than standard print. Where however the information is specifically relevant to numbers of blind or partially sighted people, arrangements are made for it to be available through tape library services.
  480

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of housing subsidy under the Housing Act 1980 that each Welsh housing authority is entitled to in 1993–94; and what is the total for Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Development Board for Rural Wales and district housing authorities are no longer entitled to claim housing subsidy under part VI of the Housing Act 1980. However, district housing authorities may adjust claims made prior to 31 March 1990. No such adjusted claims have been made in this financial year to date.

  Nurses
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurse pay regrading appeal buy-outs have occurred in each district health autohority area in Wales in 1991, 1992 and to date in 1993; and what was the total cost of buy-out and the average buy-out amount in each authority area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurse pay regarding appeals were outstanding within each district health authority in Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested on outstanding appeals is as shown in the following table:

  Health Authority

  Appeals at employing authority level

  Appeals at all-Wales level

  Appeals at national level

  Clwyd

  0

  40

  71

  East Dyfed

  4

  79

  7

  Gwent

  4

  222

  17

  Gwynedd

  0

  113

  32

  Mid Glamorgan

  96

  310

  39

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  50

  0

  Powys

  0

  103

  43

  South Glamorgan

  0

  231

  29

  West Glamorgan

  0

  83

  8

  WALES

  104

  1,231

  246

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in his Department and Agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department has not contracted out any services or functions since November 1991 which were previously carried out in-house. The application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 has therefore not been relevant during that period.

  Economically Inactive Persons
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information is held as to the numbers of economically inactive persons in Wales recorded by the 1991 census as(a) housewives, (b) students and (c) long-term sick.
  481
  Mr. Redwood
  The 1991 census recorded the number of economically inactive residents aged 16 and over in Wales. Of these, 91,226 were students, 160,652 were permanently sick and 303,378 were females in the category "other inactive" which includes persons looking after the family/home.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy in respect of replying to correspondence to him from hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies.

  Mr. Redwood
  All right hon. members and leaders of parties in Wales usually receive a reply from me whatever the subject of their inquiries.

  All other members are answered by myself, the Minister of State or the Parliamentary Secretary usually in accordance with ministerial responsibilities for different subjects.

  We also take into account the addressee of the letter and any special interests of the Ministers.

  South Glamorgan Peripheral Distributor Road
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received with regard to the proposed trunking of the south Glamorgan peripheral distributor road; what response he proposes to make to such representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A report submitted by South Glamorgan county council is being considered.

  Housing Association Properties
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to capital grant levels and rent levels in housing association properties and their effect on the incentive to work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received several representations in recent months, notably about housing association grant.

ENVIRONMENT

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings of local liaison committees were attended by representatives of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution during 1990, 1991 and 1992; and what is his chief inspector's current policy on HMIP representation at local liaison committees.

  Mr. Yeo
  The number of meetings of local liaison committees attended by representatives of HMIP was as follows:

  Meetings

  1990

  113

  1991

  134

  1992

  119

  Within overall resource constraints and at the discretion of regional managers, HMIP will normally
  482
  attend: local authority committee meetings where the inspector has identified a positive purpose for attending and will deliver a specific message to the meeting; general meetings where guidance is requested and specific issues are to be discussed, except where there is an application or enforcement procedure pending.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many farm diversification schemes have been implemented following the issue of his planning policy guidance note No. 7—PPG7; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is for farmers themselves to decide if they wish to engage in a diversification project. We have no information on the number of such enterprises, either requiring planning permission or otherwise, but new enterprises that are well planned can benefit both farmers and the communities in which they live. We expect local planning authorities to have regard to PPG7 in the exercise of their planning functions.

  Shared Housing Ownership
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the grant allocation for individual projects under the Housing Corporation's shared ownership for the elderly programme for the current financial year and for each year since 1989 by region and local authority area.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation does not have a separate shared ownership programme for the elderly. However, a proportion of its general shared ownership is designated for the elderly. It also runs a leasehold for the elderly scheme, where elderly people may buy a lease from a housing association, which then acts as managing agent. At the allocation stage the corporation's records do not make it possible to distiguish between these two scheme types. It is not yet possible, therefore, to provide a separate figure for allocations to shared ownership schemes for the elderly for 1993–94.

  I will arrange for two tables to be placed in the Library, one showing the combined total value of allocations for leasehold for the elderly and shared ownership schemes intended for the elderly for 1993–94 broken down by region and local authority area, and the other showing a breakdown between the two schemes for the earlier years requested. It would not be possible to provide the list of allocations to individual projects requested, except at disproportionate cost.

  Environmental Audits
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made to date by his Department in establishing an environmental audit scheme for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 20 July 1993,Official Report, column 129.
  483

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to(a) establish a target date for cutting methyl bromide use by 50 per cent. in the United Kingdom and (b) bring forward scheduled date for the phasing out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have no plans to cut methyl bromide use in the United Kingdom by 50 per cent. We support the Commission's proposal that consumption of HCFCs within the European Community should end by 2015.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have been undertaken at Council of Ministers level concerning(a) the phasing out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and (b) reducing levels of methyl bromide; and what were the positions taken by representatives from Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands in the discussions.

  Mr. Yeo
  Numerous discussions on HCFCs and methyl bromide controls have taken place at the Council of Ministers level over the past year, notably at informal Councils during the renegotiation of the Montreal protocol in Copenhagen. The positions of the three countries mentioned have varied during this time.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning emissions of methyl bromide from chemical plant processes in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not currently available.

  Housing. Association
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make in the arrangements under which local authorities can support housing associations with housing association grant.

  Sir George Young
  I have no plans at present to make any such changes.

  Architects
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that only qualified architects are permitted to use the title.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 30 June 1993,Official Report, column 526, and to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 2 February 1993, Official Report, columns 89–90.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of opencast coal planning applications, size and location of sites in Northumberland and Durham submitted in each year since 1990 and those which have received approval.
  484
  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally. According to statistics published by the County Planning Officers Society's committee No. 3, however, the information is as follows:

  Planning Applications

  Number of applications

  Area (hectares)

  Tonnage (thousands)

  Durham

  1990–91

  21

  642

  3,213

  1991–92

  8

  174

  595

  Northumberland

  1990–91

  14

  253

  1,976

  1991–92

  8

  291

  936

  Applications Approved

  Number

  Area

  Tonnage

  Durham

  1990–91

  12

  334

  960

  1991–92

  5

  92

  327

  Northumberland

  1990–91

  10

  119

  1,602

  1991–92

  7

  197

  706

  Environmental Tribunal
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been undertaken by his Department for the establishment of an environmental tribunal in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  The recent White Paper on open government announced that we are considering the need for a tribunal to handle appeals under the Environmental Information Regulations. We are not thinking of setting up an environmental tribunal with any wider remit.

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to support the use of strategic environmental assessments within policies, plans and programmes adopted within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  In "This Common Inheritance: The Second Year Report"—Cm 2068—the Government restated their commitment to integrating environmental concerns into decision making at all levels.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the capacity of the proposed Nirex deep repository for radioactive waste would be required to dispose of(a) thermal oxide reprocessing plant operational wastes if British Nuclear Fuels plc is not allowed to satisfy foreign waste return clauses using substitution for equivalent waste, (b) THORP operational wastes if substitution is allowed, (c) THORP decommissioning wastes and (d) wastes arising from stage 3 decommissioning of existing nuclear facilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  The capacity of the proposed Nirex deep disposal facility for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste has yet to be established.
  485

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances consumed by his Department are identified as controlled wastes when they are no longer in use.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has taken action to deal with the proper disposal of the most significant ozone-depleting substances used on our premises. New guidance for procurement and accommodation officers instructs them to ensure that service contractors comply with best practice including professional guidance and relevant British standards.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date his Department's use of ozone-depleting chemicals will conform to EC regulations on limits on these chemicals.

  Mr. Yeo
  The current EC regulations control the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances not their use.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the quantity of ozone-depleting substances recycled within the Department and returned to the manufacturer.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures for the quantity of ozone-depleting substances recycled within the Department and returned to the manufacturer are not available. It is the Department's policy to recycle or dispose of such substances in an environmentally responsible manner.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment which current uses of ozone-depleting chemicals by his Department are considered essential.

  Mr. Yeo
  None of my Department's uses of ozone-depleting chemicals will require continued production under the Montreal protocol or European Community essential use procedures.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much funding has been allocated or spent to deal specifically with measures to reduce the Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures for how much the Department is spending to reduce its consumption of ozone-depleting substances are not available. My Department is taking a number of initiatives to eliminate the use of these substances on its premises including: the purchase of fridges free of ozone depleting substances, the replacement of halon fire extinguishers, a ban on the purchase of correction fluids containing 1.1.1-Trichloroethane; and a programme to identify and then replace CFCs and HCFCs in air conditioning plant.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures have been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances in use by his Department, identified as controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, do not reach the atmosphere.

  Mr. Yeo
  New guidance for procurement and accommodation officers instructs them to ensure that service contractors comply with best practice including professional guidance and relevant British standards.
  486
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many chlorofluorocarbon domestic fridges are contained within Department buildings.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures for the number of CFC domestic fridges contained within our many premises are not available. The numbers will decline as we continue our policy of replacing them with ozone-friendly fridges as they come to the end of their useful life.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets have been set for the recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals within departmental buildings.

  Mr. Yeo
  No specific targets have been set. New guidance for procurement and accommodation officers instructs them to ensure that service contractors comply with best practice, including professional guidance and relevant British standards.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many catastrophic leaks of ozone-depleting substances have occurred within Department buildings in the last five years.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances become controlled waste in terms of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures are not kept for the amount of ozone-depleting substances removed from departmental premises. My Department has just appointed consultants to review our environmental management systems and, as part of their brief, they will consider the need for such records.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many CFC and chlorofluorcarbon and hydrochlorofluorocarbon installations are contained within Department buildings.

  Mr. Yeo
  No central records are kept of CFC and HCFC installations contained within departmental buildings, but the Department has just appointed consultants to review our environmental management systems and the development of procedures for keeping such records is part of their brief.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been sought and received on alternatives or substitutes for the ozone-destroying chemicals in use by his Department.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has sought and received advice on substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals from a variety of sources.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to purchase for his Department only ozone-friendly fridges that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons or hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department's policy is to buy fridges which do not contain ozone-depleting substances in either the refrigerant or the insulation.
  487
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many portable halon fire extinguishers are contained within departmental buildings; and what measures are being taken to ensure their recycling and replacement.

  Mr. Yeo
  No such extinguishers are contained within the buildings for which my Department has lead responsibility.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the latest available figures are for the Department's total purchase of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures on the total amount of CFCs and HCFCs purchased by the Department are not available. It is the Department's policy to eliminate the use of ozone-depleting substances on its premises.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what quantity of HCFC 22 is purchased by the Department per annum.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures on the amount of HCFC 22 purchased annually are not available. It is my Department's policy to eliminate the use of ozone-depleting chemicals on its premises.

  Temporary Accommodation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were in temporary accommodation for each year since 1978(a) in total and (b) in the north-west region.

  Sir George Young
  Information is reported quarterly to the Department—half-yearly before 1984—on homeless households for whom local authorities have accepted responsibility to secure permanent accommodation, under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and part III of the Housing Act 1985.

  The available estimates of the number of such households in temporary accommodation in England and in the north west at 31 December, including some on whom inquiries had not yet been completed, are as follows:

  England

  North west

  1978

  13,700

  2—

  1979

  1

  2—

  1980

  1

  2—

  1981

  1

  2—

  1982

  9,340

  2—

  1983

  9,840

  2—

  1984

  12,300

  540

  1985

  15,920

  790

  1986

  20,790

  900

  1987

  24,760

  1,750

  1988

  30,100

  1,840

  1989

  37,900

  1,650

  1990

  45,270

  1,920

  1991

  59,930

  2,210

  1992

  62,740

  2,200

  1 Includes only those households in bed and breakfast accommodation and in hostels and women's refuges. Prior to 1982 information on homeless households in other forms of temporary accommodation was not collected by the Department.

  2 Not available.

  488

  Housing Finance Survey
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the 1993 Association of District Councils/Association of Metropolitan Authorities housing finance survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The joint Association of District Councils and Association of Metropolitan Authorities housing finance survey provides a useful contribution to the information which the Department gathers during the course of the financial year, and I was pleased to have a discussion with the associations about the 1993–94 survey at the meeting of the Housing Consultative Council on 7 July. My Department will, as usual, form a view of the emerging picture on local authority housing finance, and all of this information will be taken carefully into account in the decisions we take, including in the context of the public expenditure survey, which will conclude towards the end of the year.

  Local Government
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total gross expenditure on local government in 1991–92 prices for each year since 1970–71.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is:

  Total gross expenditure (England) at 1991–92 prices (£ million)

  1980–81

  56,570

  1981–82

  55,081

  1982–83

  56,262

  1983–84

  58,062

  1984–85

  58,215

  1985–86

  57,718

  1986–87

  58,359

  1987–88

  59,904

  1988–89

  60,722

  1989–90

  64,528

  11990–91

  63,422

  1,21991–92

  63645

  1992–93

  n.a

  1993–94

  n.a

  1Figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are not directly comparable with those in respect of earlier years due to system changes.

  2Provisional.

  Housing Welfare Services
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decision he has reached on the outcome of the consultation exercise on housing welfare services, which was conducted earlier in the current year by his Department and the Welsh Office.

  Sir George Young
  When the provision of welfare services to elderly people in local authority sheltered housing was put in doubt following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Ealing case, the Government acted immediately to provide protection. New powers were taken in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, and my Department and the Welsh Office issued a consultation paper about the
  489
  long-term arrangements for local authority housing welfare services. We have now decided how to proceed, taking careful account of the information and views expressed by local authorities and others.

  First, we have decided to leave in place indefinitely the powers for local authorities to provide housing welfare services to their tenants. This will give housing authorities the long-term certainty that they need, and will be widely welcomed.

  Second, we have decided that some of the welfare services which may be provided by wardens in sheltered accommodation, and which are concerned with the provision of essential care, should no longer be charged to the housing revenue account. These services are those of the kind which involve helping tenants into and out of bed; toileting, dressing, feeding and bathing; administering medication; and nursing care. Instead, these services should be funded from the general funds of local authorities, and the appropriate public resource transfer will be considered. The exclusion of these services from the housing revenue account, will be subject to the making of an order, on which consultation will be conducted in the normal way. It will not affect authorities powers to provide these services.

  Remaining housing welfare services provided by wardens should be able to be charged to the housing revenue account, but local authorities will need to consider this carefully in each individual case.

  We are satisfied that these decisions and proposals will produce no disruption to the services provided to elderly people in sheltered housing schemes, consistent with the commitment that the Government's have given. There should be no implications for tenants' existing entitlements to housing benefit.

  During the consultation on wardens' welfare services in sheltered housing schemes, a broader range of issues has been drawn out, which concern the role of all social housing managers. These issues again fall into two groups. First, those which concern the powers given to housing management; and second, the source of the funds to pay for management activities.

  Housing managers do need the ability to use broad powers. The primary role of professional council housing management is to ensure that housing is properly utilised, is kept in good repair and that rents are collected. But in cases of special needs, and in the most difficult and challenging housing estates, the responsibility of managers covers a wide range of functions, alongside the efficient and effective delivery of the normal estate management duties. The Government have worked with local authorities, through a range of policies and programmes, to encourage and support a better life for tenants on estates. Additional services are required by these programmes. In some instances, managers may need to provide these services themselves. Often, they can better act as co-ordinators and facilitators of services provided by other agencies.

  It does not follow that all the costs of these additional services should be paid for from rents or from the subsidy provided by central government to housing revenue accounts. Rents are paid by tenants essentially towards housing costs, and the housing revenue account is primarily an account for the costs of meeting landlord functions. Local authorities therefore need to consider carefully, within the requirements of schedule 4 to the
  490
  Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which costs should be charged to their housing revenue accounts, and which should be funded from elsewhere.

  There has been much debate on these issues during consultation on the proposals for welfare services. It may be that some further discussion of the wider role of social housing managers would be helpful to provide a greater degree of understanding and clarity. The Government want to ensure that their policies of working with local housing authorities to assist tenants and for better housing estates remain strong. My Department and the Welsh Office will shortly consult local authority associations about how best to approach this, including whether it would be helpful to issue a departmental circular.

  Direct Labour
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour or services organisations made significant financial losses in 1991–92.

  Mr. Baldry
  So far this year, 60 statutory notices under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 hayed been served on 38 different local authorities in respect of financial failure in 1991–92. My right hon. Friend has now considered the responses of nine of the authorities on whom notices were served on 25 January and 7 April. He has today given directions under section 19B of the 1980 Act to the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham—building maintenance and highways and sewerage—and under section 14 of the 1988 Act to the London borough of Waltham Forest—ground maintenance.

  The effect of these directions is to require the authorities to seek the Secretary of State's consent if they wish to award the work, or elements of the work to their in-house labour force following retendering which is currently under-way.

  He has decided to take no further action in respect of financial failure in 1991–92 by:

  (a) Canterbury (building maintenance, highways and sewerage, sport and leisure management), Daventry (highways and sewerage), Hampshire (highways and sewerage), Liverpool (highways and sewerage), Southwark (ground maintenance, highways and sewerage, refuse collection, vehicle maintenance) and Stoke-on-Trent (building maintenance, highways and sewerage other cleaning, refuse collection), because they met financial objectives in 1992–93,

  (b) Canterbury (school and welfare catering) Sandwell (building maintenance) and Stoke0on-Trent (works of new construction over £50,000) because, despite recording losses in 1992–93, they have provided strong evidence that financial objectives will be net in 1993–94.

  (c) Canterbury (other catering) because the work has been contracted out.

  Canterbury, Southwark, Stoke-on-Trent and Sandwell hayed been asked to provide quarterly financial returns to the Department.

  He is still considering responses from the London borough of Camden—building maintenance—and from Hereford and Worcester county council—building maintenance—to notices served on them on 25 March and 7 April respectively and responses from the remaining 27 authorities on which notices were served during May and June.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now considered the responses made
  491
  by the London borough of Lambeth to the five notices served on it, on 24 March, under section 19A of the Local Government, Planning and. Land Act 1980 and section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has considered carefully the responses he has received from the London borough of Lambeth to the statutory notices served on the council on 24 March, and has given today four directions to the authority, under section 19B of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 and section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  These measures effectively prevent the direct labour organisation from carrying out further work on highway maintenance, including street lighting, after 1 April 1994, except for emergency work, snow clearance, and gritting roads; prevent the DLO from carrying out work on the repair and maintenance of non-educational public buildings; restrict the amount of housing maintenance work which can be carried out by the DLO to two out of the three existing contracts and provide that the Secretary of State's consent is required before the DLO can carry out further work after 1 April 1994. In addition, the directions require the authority to submit all outstanding accounts to the Department by 31 December 1993 or be prevented from carrying out the relevant work after 31 July 1994.

  Water Act 1989
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the operation, by water companies, of the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation, approved under the provisions of the Water Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The standing committee set up by the Government on the code of practice—comprising representatives from conservation, heritage and recreation bodies, the water industry, the National Rivers Authority and Government Departments—has recently reported on the operation of the code. The report, which has been placed in the Library of the House, confirms that the water industry is carrying forward the environmental policies of its predecessors and in doing so is reflecting the guidance provided in the code on meeting statutory environmental duties.

  At the time of privatisation, it was widely feared that there would be a deterioration in the conservation activities of the water industry and in its provision for public access and recreation. The report shows that this has not occurred. On the contrary, the indications are that access is being extended and facilities improved.

  The report also highlights the overall high standard of annual reports published by the water companies, since privatisation, on their work in relation to conservation, access and recreation.

  Conservation
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation in the land use planning system of the new EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; and when the Government will publish the planning policy guidance note on nature conservation.
  492
  Mr. Curry
  The Government expect to lay draft regulations to implement the planning aspects of the EC habitats directive in Great Britain in the autumn. They will provide for the formal designation of special areas of conservation—SACs—pursuant to the habitats directive and of special protective areas—SPAs—pursuant to the birds directive. There are currently 72 designated SPAs.

  We are continuing to work on the details of the implementation of the directive, but our current proposals are to require decisions taken under the planning and related legislation to accord with the relevant requirements of the directive. The draft regulations will, it is proposed, include a requirement to take appropriate steps under that legislation to help meet the obligation under the directive to avoid significant deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species in designated SPAs and SACs. Where a proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on an SAC or SPA, and is not directly connected with or necessary to site management, the local planning authority or other decision taker will be required to assess the proposal for its implications on the conservation objectives for which the area was designated.

  The regulations will provide that development may proceed if the assessment shows that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. If the assessment indicates that a negative effect on the nature conservation interest will result, the development may only be allowed if there are no alternative solution and if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or economic nature. There are stricter considerations for sites. which host priority natural habitats or species, which are considered to be in danger of extinction.

  The Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will publish the planning policy guidance note on nature conservation after Parliament has considered the draft Regulations and before they come into force. The PPG will provide guidance on how the Government's policies on the conservation of our natural heritage should be reflected in land use planning. It will also set out the main obligations under both domestic and international law, which local planning authorities need to know in drawing up development plans and in taking planning decisions.

  The Scottish Office will publish an explanatory circular at about the same time, and intends to issue in draft in the autumn more comprehensive guidance for local authorities and others on the natural heritage in Scotland.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the total local authority grant distribution is influenced by the number of single-parent families living within an authority's area.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: The distribution of revenue support grant to local authorities depends on the difference between each authority's standard spending assessment and its income from business rates and the council tax. It is not possible to say how much of the grant distribution is attributable to any one of these influences.

  The proportion of children living in single-parent families forms one component of the additional needs, children at risk and children's social index indicators used to calculate the SSA elements for education and personal social services. The proportion of persons living in single

  493
  adult households with children under age 16 is also one component of the all-ages social index used to calculate the SSA elements for all other services and for personal social serevices for people aged 18 to 64 years.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the total grant distribution for local authorities is determined by the percentage of households(a) without access to an inside lavatory and (b) sharing accommodation.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: The distribution of revenue support grant to local authorities depends on the difference between each authority's standard spending assessment and its income from business rates and the council tax. it is not possible to say how much of the grant distribution is influenced by any one of these elements.

  The proportions of persons in households without exclusive use of a bath or inside lavatory and in shared accommodation are two of the five components of the all ages social index used to calculate the SSA elements for all other services—for shire districts only—and for personal social services for people aged between 18 and 64 years. The proportion of persons in shared accommodation also is one component of the children's social index used to calculate the SSA element for children's social services.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the validity of the 1991 census data on(a) the percentage of households sharing accommodation and (b) the number of households with an outside lavatory as measures of housing need as part of the standard spending assessment system.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: The proportions of persons in households in shared accommodation and without exclusive use of a bath or inside lavatory are two of the five components of the all ages social index used to calculate the SSA elements for all other social services—for Shire district services—and for personal social services for people aged between 18 and 24 years. The appropriateness of the index and its components are being considered in consultation with the local authority associations, as part of the SSA review which is underway at present.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to the extent to which declining school populations put additional cost per pupil burden on local authorities; and if he will consider recognising such costs as part of the review of SSAs currently being undertaken.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: None. No evidence has yet been presented as part of the current review of standard spending assessments on the extent to which declining school populations create unavoidable additional costs per pupil in providing a common level of service.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will update the forecast of local authorities' extra capital expenditure arising from the temporary relaxation in the capital receipt rules; and when he expects to consult the local authority associations about the effect to date of the relaxation.
  494
  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities' estimates of the capital receipts they expect to receive during the period of the temporary relaxation in the rules will be published in due course once authorities' returns have been received and processed. It is for local authorities to decide the spending of their usable capital receipts. We will consider any representations on this subject made by the local authority associations at the meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 22 July.

  EC Habitats Directive
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those coastal and offshore sites which his Department is considering for inclusion on a list of special areas of conservation under the EC habitats directive; and if he will place in the Library a map identifying them.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee is co-ordinating work of the statutory nature conservation agencies in identifying candidates for the United Kingdom national list of sites under the habitats directive. It is not yet in a position to make recommendations.

  Parking Penalties
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines are issued to London local authorities regarding consistency in penalties for parking on single yellow lines and residents' parking meters by(a) private and (b) public traffic wardens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department issued guidance to London local authorities in August 1992—"Traffic Management and Parking Guidance", local authority circular 5/92, paragraph 12.5. This says that penalties under the new local authority parking enforcement system should broadly correspond with the levels of fixed penalties for the non-endorsable parking offences enforced by the police and the traffic warden service.

SCOTLAND

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what he intends to do to reduce road accident casualties among(a) children under five years of age, (b) children of five to 16 years of age, (c) pensioners and (d) pedestrians in (i) rural areas and (ii) urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have set a target of reducing road accident casualties by one third by the year 2000. I am very glad to say that substantial progress has been made in reducing fatal and serious casualties. In 1992, these had been reduced by 37 per cent. from the baseline (the average casualty numbers between 1981 and 1985). Progress has been slower with total casualties. These are down 11 per cent. from the baseline. Much therefore remains to be done to meet the challenging one-third target.

  The casualty reduction target can only be tackled by multi-disciplinary and multi-agency effort. Central

  495
  Government work closely with local government, with the police and with the specialised road safety organisations in the fields of engineering enforcement and education.

  Analyses have already identified the vulnerable road users in Scotland, and actions are in hand to improve safety amongst them. The Scottish Office Education Department and the Scottish Road Safety Campaign have taken initiatives to improve the road safety training and education of school age children, particularly as pedestrians but also as pedal cyclists. Hard hitting television advertising is being broadcast to target the most vulnerable school age pedestrians, namely boys between 8 and 14-years-old. For the pre-school age group, the Scottish Road Safety Campaign has produced a videofilm of simple safety rules for showing in playgroups and nurseries. The video is complemented by a leaflet for parents. The Scottish Office is taking independent advice from consultants on the options for creating a Children's Traffic Club for three to five-year-olds in Scotland. For the elderly, road safety messages are being placed on public transport and on posters for issue through local road safety officers and social work departments. Later in the year, elderly people will be provided with reflective shopping bags to carry as a conspicuity aid.

  Most pedestrian casualties happen on local roads and local authorities are being encouraged to draw up safety plans and to undertake local safety schemes to tackle these problems. The Scottish Office supports these efforts by helping to underpin local accident, investigation and prevention units, and by the adoption of policies—particularly relating to vehicle speed—designed to promote traffic calming. The Scottish Office has issued revised criteria for setting speed limits on local roads, and is taking part in an examination of ways to reduce vehicle speeds through villages. Guidance has been issued on the

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceeding to court

  Total reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceeding to court

  Total reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceeding to court

  Total reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceeding to court

  Total reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceeding to court

  Aberdeen

  14,203

  1,536

  8,033

  14,411

  820

  8,468

  15,334

  1,079

  8,723

  17,460

  996

  10,121

  16,689

  1,135

  9,978

  Airdrie

  9,544

  640

  5,823

  9,295

  768

  5,345

  9,771

  715

  5,531

  9,909

  762

  6,118

  9,383

  816

  5,451

  Alloa

  2,924

  343

  1,784

  3,226

  306

  1,826

  3,526

  400

  2,004

  3,702

  443

  1,835

  3,856

  332

  2,002

  Abroath

  2,537

  229

  1,613

  2,644

  152

  1,732

  3,232

  170

  1,868

  3,249

  196

  1,708

  3,828

  263

  1,722

  Ayr

  10,274

  1,344

  5,285

  11,953

  1,175

  4,646

  11,734

  950

  5,171

  11,936

  1,002

  5,153

  11,270

  819

  5,439

  Banff

  1,198

  93

  757

  1,140

  59

  681

  1,385

  59

  743

  1,786

  119

  931

  1,600

  90

  872

  Campbeltown

  776

  67

  610

  803

  78

  653

  750

  94

  559

  954

  93

  696

  831

  64

  591

  Cupar

  2,994

  265

  1,818

  3,288

  274

  1,529

  3,021

  221

  1,540

  2,793

  228

  1,328

  3,219

  265

  1,543

  Dingwall

  1,885

  270

  1,140

  1,969

  179

  1,519

  2,048

  201

  1,557

  1,992

  126

  1,547

  1,951

  147

  1,476

  Dornoch

  598

  48

  446

  660

  44

  437

  598

  57

  462

  603

  57

  457

  601

  56

  432

  Dumbarton

  8,691

  809

  5,347

  9,137

  602

  5,563

  9,813

  654

  5,385

  10,363

  842

  5,784

  9,379

  1,152

  4,998

  Dumfries

  8,270

  273

  6,770

  7,073

  288

  5,653

  8,330

  259

  6,089

  9,016

  334

  6,615

  9,873

  376

  5,778

  Dundee

  13,600

  1,082

  9,257

  13,812

  2,261

  8,654

  15,688

  2,664

  8,226

  14,885

  1,941

  9,442

  14,059

  1,361

  8,233

  Dunfermline

  8,939

  1,325

  4,076

  8,395

  615

  4,493

  8,115

  771

  4,018

  8,527

  1,008

  4,458

  8,843

  780

  5,074

  Dunoon

  1,337

  196

  978

  1,463

  185

  996

  1,548

  173

  972

  1,528

  122

  894

  1,494

  120

  982

  Duns

  1,720

  188

  630

  1,388

  93

  430

  1,897

  130

  772

  2,001

  140

  626

  2,181

  133

  607

  Edinburgh

  37,651

  4,933

  21,748

  41,411

  4,029

  23,426

  39,355

  4,321

  23,375

  36,113

  3,233

  21,229

  36,747

  2,914

  21,782

  Elgin

  4,485

  688

  2,092

  4,956

  530

  2,494

  5,179

  617

  2,094

  5,431

  478

  2,563

  4,704

  445

  2,242

  Falkirk

  9,801

  1,976

  4,761

  11,329

  1,606

  4,852

  10,578

  1,576

  4,235

  11,412

  1,683

  4,889

  11,470

  1,600

  5,025

  Forfar

  3,459

  37

  1,950

  3,403

  125

  1,803

  3,734

  99

  2,027

  4,112

  47

  1,796

  3,882

  54

  1,758

  Fort William

  1,732

  122

  1,184

  1,804

  118

  1,170

  1,635

  95

  1,117

  1,691

  112

  1,281

  1,809

  87

  1,184

  Glasgow

  74,001

  18,514

  37,741

  82,948

  19,066

  42,599

  84,162

  14,377

  42,181

  85,936

  10,298

  44,265

  86,156

  10,411

  44,385

  Greenock

  6,268

  762

  3,838

  7,573

  406

  3,729

  7,461

  535

  3,388

  7,403

  441

  3,514

  7,516

  493

  3,305

  Haddington

  4,380

  606

  2,211

  4,785

  466

  2,534

  4,131

  571

  1,830

  3,769

  434

  2,190

  4,491

  396

  2,500

  Hamilton

  26,097

  4,271

  13,261

  28,404

  2,486

  16,095

  28,539

  2,264

  17,009

  27,301

  2,310

  16,297

  26,136

  2,427

  15,947

  Inverness

  7,234

  655

  4,486

  6,593

  625

  4,126

  7,558

  582

  4,912

  8,429

  547

  5,512

  8,606

  672

  5,156

  Jedburgh

  1,772

  238

  945

  1,872

  138

  1,050

  1,981

  209

  837

  2,358

  219

  1,002

  2,436

  230

  849

  Kilmarnock

  12,750

  1,530

  6,911

  14,099

  1,164

  8,303

  13,708

  1,025

  7,522

  13,453

  956

  7,942

  12,921

  1,290

  6,930

  Kirkcaldy

  10,053

  1,217

  5,517

  9,443

  517

  5,814

  8,760

  456

  5,890

  9,117

  545

  5,958

  9,536

  780

  5,278

  Kirkcudbright

  1,377

  33

  985

  1,411

  35

  1,152

  1,663

  65

  1,145

  1,876

  61

  1,338

  2,018

  54

  1,158

  Kirkwall

  681

  78

  584

  664

  56

  591

  662

  60

  512

  676

  86

  450

  757

  96

  492

  Lanark

  4,980

  574

  1,975

  5,254

  1,194

  2,667

  4,973

  495

  2,944

  6,784

  402

  4,279

  6,717

  523

  3,999

  Lerwick

  913

  129

  564

  1,007

  137

  516

  1,178

  115

  577

  996

  160

  436

  883

  107

  418

  Linlithgow

  8,631

  575

  5,594

  9,928

  457

  6,243

  10,053

  337

  6,212

  9,255

  347

  6,225

  9,017

  395

  5,971

  Lochmaddy

  312

  8

  262

  244

  13

  191

  236

  19

  162

  241

  10

  188

  270

  18

  215

  Oban

  1,299

  123

  932

  1,174

  74

  896

  1,208

  84

  846

  1,189

  75

  879

  1,177

  109

  852

  496
  creation of 20 mph speed limit zones, on variable speed limits, and on the introduction of automatic cameras to detect speed and red light offenders. Traffic calming regulations are being prepared to clarify the types of speed reducing engineering measures which are acceptable. It is expected that traffic calming will have much to contribute towards casualty reduction in urban and rural situations.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will conduct an investigation into bed-and-breakfast establishments to assess their suitability as emergency and as long-term accommodation for the homeless in respect of cleanliness and available facilities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for local housing authorities to ensure that bed-and-breakfast establishments which provide short-term accommodation for homeless people are suitable for that purpose; £7·5 million extra capital allocations were made available to authorities in December 1992 targeted on projects reducing the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and assisting single-parent families.

  Police Reports
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each procurator fiscal area for each of the last five years(a) the total number of reports submitted by the police, (b) the total number marked "no further proceedings", (c) the total number proceeded with and (d) the total number resulting in conviction; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:
  497

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Tool reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceedting to court

  Total reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceeding to court

  Total reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceeding to court

  Total reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceeding to court

  Tool reports submitted

  No prosecutions

  Cases proceeding to court

  Paisley

  11,922

  2,654

  7,059

  12,935

  921

  6,854

  11,337

  960

  6,461

  12,502

  1,115

  6,481

  15,136

  1,105

  7,087

  Peebles

  834

  47

  465

  1,126

  61

  672

  1,080

  50

  652

  1,137

  51

  602

  1,488

  42

  748

  Perth

  9,355

  1,641

  4,590

  8,908

  1,211

  4,863

  11,611

  1,494

  5,921

  10,887

  1,376

  5,015

  10,210

  1,476

  4,113

  Peterhead

  2,476

  647

  1,118

  2,731

  273

  1,583

  3,054

  300

  1,505

  3,196

  362

  1,547

  3,282

  338

  1,480

  Portree

  690

  56

  471

  586

  35

  397

  617

  38

  377

  848

  44

  467

  539

  38

  353

  Rothesay

  362

  39

  282

  373

  58

  242

  316

  34

  188

  363

  39

  268

  331

  27

  205

  Selkirk

  2,273

  268

  1,044

  2,280

  228

  929

  2,482

  197

  1,014

  2,404

  207

  968

  2,119

  130

  1,008

  Stirling

  6,750

  466

  4,047

  7,623

  422

  4,145

  7,252

  506

  4,170

  7,684

  461

  4,426

  7,245

  624

  4,114

  Stonehaven

  2,683

  199

  1,427

  3,119

  202

  1,514

  3,710

  239

  1,672

  4,864

  250

  2,052

  3,426

  183

  1,630

  Stornoway

  927

  36

  702

  1,027

  20

  695

  1,118

  13

  751

  1,165

  21

  846

  843

  97

  527

  Stranraer

  2,136

  194

  1,534

  2,336

  243

  1,437

  2,241

  159

  1,618

  3,510

  250

  2,360

  3,322

  204

  2,193

  Tain

  1,487

  250

  923

  1,464

  163

  1,036

  1,598

  148

  1,110

  1,610

  170

  1,115

  1,616

  132

  1,197

  Wick

  1,312

  223

  945

  1,218

  114

  872

  1,532

  176

  981

  1,315

  127

  932

  1,430

  181

  885

  Total

  350,573

  52,497

  196,515

  374,685

  45,092

  208,115

  381,492

  40,813

  208,855

  389,731

  35,326

  217,025

  387,293

  35,587

  210,164

  Outcome of court oroceedines bv reeion1

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Persons called to court

  Persons charge proved

  Persons called to court

  Persons charge proved

  Persons called to court

  Persons charge proved

  Persons called to court

  Persons charge proved

  Grampian region

  14,348

  13,250

  14,407

  13,387

  15,254

  14,010

  16,174

  14,912

  Tayside region

  18,717

  16,724

  17,600

  15,855

  17,773

  15,826

  17,026

  14,848

  Fife region

  13,272

  12,304

  12,446

  11,369

  12,289

  11,214

  11,861

  10,561

  Central region

  11,153

  9,854

  11,032

  9,771

  10,500

  9,432

  11,097

  9,910

  Strathclyde region

  88,955

  80,696

  85,820

  75,963

  89,281

  78,222

  83,729

  73,911

  Dumfries and Galloway region

  9,800

  9,008

  9,134

  8,374

  8,458

  7,830

  8,919

  8,377

  Lothian region

  26,415

  23,003

  28,798

  25,791

  28,728

  25,319

  25,902

  23,638

  Borders region

  3,023

  2,879

  2,889

  2,762

  3,020

  2,881

  2,988

  2,878

  Highland region

  8,074

  7,587

  8,301

  7,693

  9,352

  8,708

  9,925

  9,191

  Orkney

  588

  560

  589

  554

  562

  503

  349

  324

  Shetland

  468

  459

  505

  493

  562

  532

  461

  440

  Western Isles

  756

  731

  663

  611

  750

  709

  816

  758

  Region unknown

  3

  3

  4

  4

  2

  2

  —

  —

  High Court

  1,024

  801

  965

  746

  999

  757

  996

  743

  Total

  196,596

  177,859

  193,153

  173,373

  197,530

  175,945

  190,243

  170,491

  1 Excludes court type unknown.

  Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the rate of staff turnover in(a) NHS geriatric units, (b) local authority nursing homes, (c) voluntary body nursing homes and (d) private sector nursing homes.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the qualifications of, and ratio of qualified staff to residents(a) in NHS geriatric units and (b) in nursing homes run by (i) local authorities, (ii) voluntary bodies and (iii) private owners.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally. Data are available, however, for medical and nursing staff in the NHS and nursing staff in nursing homes registered under the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938. This information is given in the tables:
  498

  Table 1

  NHS staff in the specialty of Care of the Elderly as at 30 September 1992

  Whole-time equivalent

  Doctors

  280

  Nursing staff

  9,276

  Qualified

  4,729

  Unqualified

  4,548

  Note: Data refer to doctors working in the specialty of geriatric medicine and nursing staff in the specialty of care of the elderly. No information is available on staff working in other specialties who treat elderly patients.

  Table 2

  Nursing staff in nursing homes registered under the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 at 31 March 1992

  Whole time equivalent

  Nursing staff

  10,020

  Qualified

  3,911

  Unqualified

  6,109

  Note: Excludes independent sector establishments (mainly private hospitals) registered under the Act—8 in 1992; other "non nursing home" establishments may be included.
  499

  Table 3

  Whole lime equivalent qualified medical and nursing staff employed, average occupied bed days and the ratio staff beds in the NHS at 30 September 1992:

  Medical staff

  Nursing staff1

  A verage occupied Bed days2

  Medical staff: Beds

  Nursing staff: Beds

  280

  4,729

  9,737

  0·03

  0·49

  Note:

  1 Qualified nursing staff working in the specialty of care of the elderly.

  2 The average daily number of geriatric assessment and geriatric long stay beds occupied in all NHS hospitals in Scotland; quarter ending 31 March 1992. Borrowed and temporary beds are included.

  Table 4

  Whole-time equivalent qualified nursing staff employed, places (beds) available and the ratio qualified staff: beds of establishments registered under the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 at 31 March 1992

  Number

  Nursing Staff

  3,911·0

  Beds2

  14,161

  Staff: Beds

  0·28

  1 Excludes independent acute sector establishments (mainly private hospitals) registered under the Act (8 in 1992); other "non nursing home" establishments may be included.

  2 Information on occupancy is not currently centrally available; the number of beds is the nearest indicator as occupancy levels will generally exceed 90 per cent.

  Psychotic Patients
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has on psychotic patients who have been discharged from hospital and found no bed available when they tried to return;

  (2) how many psychotic patients seeking re-admission in each health board area have been sent to a bed-and-breakfast hotel because no hospital bed was available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not cent rally available. No individual would be refused admission to a hospital bed where it is considered clinically necessary.

  Mental Health Officer
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary fo State for Scotland if he will give the reasons for the withdrawal of the designation mental health officer.

  Mr. Stewart
  There are no plans to withdraw the designation mental health officer.

  Coastal Zone Management Scheme
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department is carrying out into a coastal zone management scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office earlier this year commissioned a review of issues affecting the Scottish coast as a first step in considering how best to take forward in Scotland the Government's response to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment's report on coastal zone protection and planning. It is expected that the review will be completed this autumn.
  500

  Care Assistants
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a circular outlining the division of responsibilities between care assistants and nursing staff.

  Mr. Stewart
  There is no need to issue a circular on the division of responsibility between nurses and care assistants. The duties and responsibilities of the two groups and the training they receive are quite distinct. Skill mix arrangements are best determined locally.

  Smoking
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions have been carried out in Scotland in each of the last five years in respect of the sale of cigarettes to minors; how many of these resulted in convictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately identifiable within the Scottish Office Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken towards achieving the targets for reducing smoking prevalence among(a) adults and (b) children as outlined in the 1992 White Paper, "Scotland's Health—A Challenge To Us All"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Action to reduce smoking prevalence at United Kingdom level has included increases in tobacco duty; the tightening of the voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry on tobacco advertising; the requirement for stronger and more prominent labelling of tobacco products; and the implementation of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, strengthening the law against the sale of cigarettes to children.

  Additionally, within Scotland, action has been initiated on the range of measures identified in "Scotland's Health—A Challenge To Us All". In particular, the Health Education Board for Scotland launched a major new mass media initiative in the autumn of 1992. The campaign features a national freephone service providing smoking cessation advice and literature; and between October 1992 and 15 July 1993, over 170,000 calls had been received. The board is also developing a smoking strategy in consultation with relevant organisations. Within the NHS in Scotland, the target of achieving virtual smoke-free status by the end of May 1993 has been achieved.

  Smoking has been a major focus in the discussions the Chief Medical Officer has had with COSLA, the STUC, Scottish Homes and the Scottish Sports Council about the contribution those bodies can make to health promotion. I have also met employers' representatives in Scotland to discuss their role in promoting health in the workplace, including the importance of having in place clear policies on smoking.

  Recognising the importance of influencing children, the new national curriculum guidelines for the 5 to 14 age group which were issued in March 1993, include guidance on health education with smoking as a key feature.

  More recently we have published a popular version or "Scotland's Health—A Challenge To Us All" which highlights the need to reduce smoking and gives advice on

  501
  how to achieve this. The document was issued widely to local authorities, schools, health boards, general practitioners, employers organisations, medical professions and voluntary organisations.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average length of time taken to prepare a patient who has been in hospital for most of his or her life for discharge under the care in the community legislation; and if he will conduct an investigation into the success of the policy.

  Mr. Stewart
  Patients who have spent many years in hospital receive careful preparation for discharge to community care. The length of time taken to prepare discharge varies widely from case to case and will depend on the patient's mental and physical condition, the nature of their illness, the length of time they have been in hospital, the availability of rehabilitation services, and the availability of suitable accommodation and support services in the community to help the patient after discharge. The primary objective for all concerned is that no patient should be discharged until they are well prepared and appropriate services are in place in the community to support them.

  The Scottish Office will shortly issue a circular describing the latest monitoring arrangements for evaluating the effectiveness of the community care reforms.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the types of benefits in addition to salary which are available only to NHS senior managers in boards of trusts, and their annual value in each case.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available centrally as individual NHS trusts have the power to employ staff on such terms as they consider appropriate to their individual circumstances.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that fluoridation of drinking water should require the consent of the elected representatives of the population concerned.

  Mr. Stewart
  Under the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, water authorities may increase the fluoride content of public water supplies on the application of health boards. As regards the future composition of water authorities, my right hon. Friend has at present nothing to add to paragraphs 3.21 to 3.24 of the White Paper "The Structure of Local Government" published earlier this month.
  502

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the interdepartmental review group on the Forestry Commission will operate in relation to the hearing of evidence and the publication of findings.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The forestry review group established by my right hon. Friend has received many representations from individuals, organisations and agencies with an interest in forestry matters. There are no plans for it to take evidence other than by such written submissions and its report, which will take the form of policy advice to Ministers, will be confidential to them.

  Net Sizes
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward proposals that the carriage of monofilament nets, above the mesh size relevant to the catching of salmon, should be legal; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to amend the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1986.

  Parole Board
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to replace part-time members of the Parole Board with full-time, salaried officials; what consultations he is undertaking in relation to, such a change; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to replace part-time members of the Parole Board with full-time salaried officials.

  Low Pay
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the change in income of the lowest-paid 10 per cent. of the population between 1979 and 1991 expressed in real terms;

  (2) what were the average earnings of the lowest-paid decile of the population in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991 in (i) 1979 prices and (ii) 1991 prices;

  (3) what was the average income of one-parent families in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991 expressed in (i) 1979 prices and (ii) cash prices;

  (4) what was he threshold wage level for the lowest paid 10 per cent. of the population in 1991, expressed in 1979 prices.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: Information relating to the threshold level of the lowest 10 per cent. of the earnings of full-time employees, in 1979 and 1991, is shown in the table. Information relating to average earnings within these decile ranges is not available. Information on income for the lowest paid 10 per cent. and for one-parent families, is not available at the level of detail requested.
  503

  Lowest Decile of Gross Weekly Earnings of Full-time Employees

  April 1979

  April 1991

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Earnings at current prices

  60·6

  40·1

  152·0

  115·9

  Earnings expressed in 1979 prices

  60·6

  40·1

  62·0

  47·3

  Sources: The New Earnings Survey and the general index of retail prices.

  Notes:

  1. Relates to employees on adult rates of pay (men aged 21 and women aged 18, or over, in 1979) whose pay was not affected by absence.

  2. Based on a 1 per cent. sample of employees on PAYE schemes.

  3. Combined information for males' and females' pay deciles is not available for 1979.

  One-parent Families
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many single-parent households were headed by(a) teenage women and (b) teenage men in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1991 or the latest available date.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: The 1991 census recorded 2,172 households in Scotland consisting of one female aged 16 to 19 and one or more children aged under 16. The corresponding number of households headed by a male aged 16 to 19 was 42. The eldest person may or may not be the parent of the others.

  Families headed by someone aged 16 to 19 but living with other adults are not included. Further information on such families will be contained in the 1991 census report on household and family composition (10 per cent.), which is due to be published in spring 1994.

  Comparable figures are not available for 1979 nor from the 1981 census.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many single-parent families there were in(a) 1979 and (b) 1991 or at the latest available date.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: It is estimated from the 1991 census that there were 132,000 lone parent families with dependent children in Scotland. Comparable figures are not available for 1979 and data from the 1981 census for lone parent families are not directly comparable owing to a different treatment of co-habitation.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage of people who are single parents in such age groups as he has available.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: Estimates for Scotland of the number of lone parents are available only from the census of population. Relevant information

  31 December 1992

  31 March 1993

  Total1

  Geriatric long-stay

  Psycho-geriatric

  Total

  Geriatric long-stay

  Psycho-geriatric

  Lothian Health Board area of treatment

  1,933

  974

  959

  1,852

  917

  914

  Edinburgh Priority Services Unit

  696

  305

  391

  642

  275

  367

  Western General Hospital Unit

  141

  24

  117

  132

  15

  117

  East and Midlothian Unit

  559

  311

  248

  532

  284

  248

  Edinburgh Child Health Unit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Infirmary and Associated Hospitals Unit

  195

  175

  20

  195

  175

  20

  West Lothian Unit

  342

  159

  183

  350

  168

  182

  1 Average available staffed beds.

  Substantial additional resources of £81 million have already been provided to local authorities to implement the community care proposals. This will increase to £106 million in 1994–95 and £158 million in 1995–96. In
  504
  from the 1991 census is not currently available, but will be contained in the 1991 census report on household and family composition (10 per cent.), which is due to be published in spring 1994.

  Lands Tribunal
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce measures to overturn the decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland in the case of Robb v. Kyle and Carrick District Council (1989) in relation to succession to tenancy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: None.

  Geriatric Patients
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy for the provision of hospital beds for the continuing 'care of geriatric patients, giving figures for existing and planned future NHS bed numbers in each of the units of Lothian health board; and what additional funding he is planning for nursing and medical provision for social work departments to meet the needs for alternative community care for people by such changes.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: Assessment of the need for national health service accommodation for the continuing care of geriatric patients is a matter for health boards. The provision of such accommodation is a matter for boards as purchasers and the relevant unit or trust as the provider.

  Information on NHS bed numbers for quarters ending 31 December 1992 and 31 March 1993, the latest available, are shown in the table below. Lothian health board are currently reviewing their strategy for the care of the elderly. Until that review is complete figures for future NHS beds for the elderly are not available.

  addition, my right hon. Friend recently announced an increase of £28 million in the funds available for bridging finance to facilitate the transfer of patients from hospitals into the community
  505

HEALTH

  Langlands Review
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations have submitted evidence to the Langlands review.

  Mr. Sackville
  The following organisations have so far submitted evidence to the review.

  National health service bodies

  Wessex Regional Health Authority (RHA); East Anglia RHA; South Western RHA; North Western RHA; North East Thames RHA; Trent RHA; South West Thames RHA; South East Thames RHA; Yorkshire RHA; Northern RHA; West Midlands RHA; Oxford RHA; Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Commission; Warwickshire Family Health Services Authority; Poole Hospitals National Health Service Trust; Norfolk Ambulance NHS Trust; Aintree Hospital Trust; Pinderfields Hospital NHS Trust.

  Professional and staff bodies

  Joint Consultants' Committee; British Medical Association; BMA Committee for Public Health Medicine and Community Health, Council of Deans of UK Medical Schools and Faculties; Royal College of Nursing; Chartered Society of Physiotherapy; Royal Pharmaceutical Society; Regional Dental Contacts Group; Regional Estates Management Group; UNISON.

  National organisations and other bodies

  Institute of Health Services Managers; National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts; NHS Trust Federation; The King's Fund; Health Services Management Centre, Birmingham; The Genetic Interest Group; Independent Health Care Association; Health Education Authority.

  Community Health
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) community psychiatric nurses, (b) health visitors, (c) community midwives, (d) practice nurses, (e) other community nurses and (f) general practitioners were employed by the NHS in inner London for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the tables. Figures for tables I and 2 are not directly comparable as district health authorities (DHAs) and family health services authorities (FHSAs) boundaries differ.

  Table 1:

  Community psychiatric nurses, health visitors, community midwives, other community nurses, (whole-time equivalents) in inner London at 30 September, 1987–91

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Community Psychiatric Nurses

  160

  170

  200

  230

  190

  Health Visitors

  440

  640

  660

  720

  720

  Community Midwives

  150

  160

  210

  200

  130

  Other Community Nurses

  720

  640

  860

  880

  810

  Notes: (i) Date applicable to DHAs in "inner London" as defined in the Tomlinson report; collected from DHAs, and, for 1991, from DHAs and NHS Trusts. (ii) Figures for community psychiatric nurses, community midwives and "Other community nurses" in 1991 are affected by coding errors. The underlying figures should be broadly unchanged from 1990.
  506

  Table 2:

  Unrestricted general practitioners, and practice nurses (whole-time equivalents), at 1 October, 1988–1992

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Unrestricted GPs

  3,221·0

  3,260·0

  3,223·0

  3,177·0

  3,186·0

  Practice nurses

  316·5

  446·9

  897·7

  928·3

  996·2

  Notes:(i) Data are for the 12 complete FHSAs which fall wholly or partly within the London initiative zone (LIZ) (ii) Figures for unrestricted GPs may have been affected by the introduction of statutory retirement at the age of 70, as from 1 April 1991.

  Management Executive (Rail Travel)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost for each of the last three years of rail travel(a) in total and (b) to and from London for Leeds-based personnel of the NHS Management Executive.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in this form.

  In 1991–92, before relocation, the National Health Service Management Executive spent a total of £577,000 on all travel and subsistence.

  In 1992–93, when the executive was operating from Leeds and London, the spend was £1,374,000. The executive is now operating from Leeds and provisional figures show that £353,000 was spent on all travel and subsistence in the first three months of the current year.

  The distribution of functions between the executive and the rest of the Department has varied from year. to year and therefore expenditure between years is not directly comparable.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS Management Executive personnel based in Leeds have been provided with first-class rail season tickets to London; and what is the cost of those tickets in the current year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Three first-class season tickets have been provided at an estimated cost of £29,400.

  Health Service Manpower
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to publish her decision on manpower in relation to the NHS Management Executive and regional health authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked a team to review the functions and manpower needed by the national health service above the level of local health care purchasers and providers. We hope to receive the team's advice shortly. It is too early to say what the implications of the review are, or over what time scale decisions might be taken.

  Orthopaedic Surgeons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has as to the ratios of specialist orthopaedic surgeon to head of population in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) all other EC countries.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right
  507
  hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Equivalent information for other European Community countries is not available.

  Hospital Orthopaedic surgeons England-—30 September 1991

  Specialty: orthopaedic surgery

  Population in '000s per doctor

  Consultants

  776

  61·83

  All doctors in Orthopaedic surgery (including consultants)

  2,529

  18·97

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has for increasing the number of specialist orthopaedic surgeons.

  Mr. Sackville
  We encourage an overall expansion of consultant numbers in order to improve patient care and this has included local central funding for the new deal and part-time consultant initiatives. The number of consultants appointed depends on the number of suitably qualified senior registrars available to fill the posts. In February this year the joint planning advisory committee accepted the trauma and orthopaedic specialty's advice on likely consultant opportunities and increased the quota for senior registrars from 181 to 210 posts. Consultant staffing in individual hospitals is a matter for local employing bodies, and they should have regard to competing priorities and available resources when assessing local staffing needs. Copies of the "Junior Doctors the New Deal" are available in the Library.

  Pesticide Poisoning
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines have been issued by her Department to general practitioners concerning the identification of the symptoms, possible causes and treatment of cases of organophosphate poisoning;

  (2) if she will place a copy of the updated version of "Pesticide Poisoning, Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners", in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance on diagnosis and treatment of acute poisoning by organophosphate (OP) pesticides was included in the Department of Health book "Pesticide Poisoning: notes for the guidance of medical practitioners" which, at the time of publication, was provided to all doctors in general practice and to all hospital accident and emergency departments.

  More recently, the Government's chief medical officers wrote in 1991 to all doctors in the United Kingdom about reporting of pesticide incidents and advised them that advice on poisoning was available from the Employment Medical Advisory Service and from the national poisons information service centres. Further advice on the subject by the Department of Health and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is soon to be sent out to all general practitioners. A copy of the Department of Health handbook and the letter (PL/CMO(91)5) are available in the Library.

  Health Technology
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of reference of the NHS central research and development committee standing group on health technology.
  508
  Mr. Sackville
  The terms of reference of the standing group on health technology assessment are as follows:

  Health Technology

    CENTRAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (CRDC) STANDING GROUP ON HEALTH TECHNOLOGY. TERMS OF REFERENCE.
    1. To advise on priorities for health technology assessment (HTA1), including

    (i) studies involving the collection and analysis of new data;

    (ii) reviews of such studies;

    (iii) reports on the current state of the development, diffusion and likely impact of new technologies;

    and having regard to:

    (a) the work of other Central Research and Development Committee (CRDC) advisory groups;

    (b) the Government's health strategy and other policy priorities for the National Health Service;

    (c) the likely benefits, risks, costs and broader impact of technologies;

    (d) the stage of the technology's evolution and diffusion, and the likely impact of an assessment on practice;

    (e) existing HTA findings both from work in the United Kingdom and from relevant work abroad;

    (f) any specific issue(s) on which the CRDC may seek advice.

    2. To advise on new technologies where, because of their potential risk, cost, ethical implications or other relevant factors, there is a particular need to control diffusion until more information is available.
    3. To advise on priorities for research into methodologies of relevance to HTA, and in particular:

    (i) methods of synthesising and reviewing existing data and findings;

    (ii) experimental and non-experimental methods of assessing effectiveness;

    (iii) economic evaluations;

    (iv) strategies and methods for assessing emerging and developing technologies;

    (v) methods which produce findings that are of relevance to as wide a range of settings as possible;

    (vi) ways of evaluating the outputs, impact and cost-effectiveness of HTA.

    4. To advise on training needs in respect of the conduct of high quality HTA.

    (i) To produce an initial report on priorities for assessments of establishing technologies, focusing in particular on technologies of relevance to more than one disease or patient group;

    (ii) Thereafter, to advise on priorities in relation to new and emerging technologies.

    1HTA is used here to refer to the assessment of the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of all procedures used by the health professionals to promote health, to prevent and treat disease, and to improve rehabilitation and long term care.
    Ms Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the budget of the NHS central research and development committee standing group on health technology.

    Mr. Sackville
    The work of the standing group is challenging, and widespread consultation with the national health service, the professions, the research community and industry are essential. It is not possible to include expertise in all areas in one group and the standing group will be underpinned by six advisory panels covering the acute sector; pharmaceuticals; population screening; primary and community care; diagnostics, imaging and monitoring; and methodologies. Funding of this scientific support will be around £150,000 in 1993–94.
    509
    The priorities for research identified by the standing group will be brought to the attention of all relevant research funding bodies. Allocations of central and NHS resources to health technology assessment (HTA) will reflect the central research and development committee's views of the importance of this task in relation to other priorities, but it is anticipated that around half of NHS direct support for research will, in time, be allocated to HTA.

  Novel Surgical Procedures
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the research her Department and the Medical Research Council are funding into the cost effectiveness of novel surgical procedures.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health has commissioned the following work into novel surgical procedures:

  Economic evaluation of laser technology in medical care (Brunel University—£106,648 between 1990 and 1992)

  Neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit—£484,719 between 1992 and 1997)

  Neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (University of Leicester—£623,207 between 1992 and 1996)

  A prospective cohort study to evaluate the long and medium term outcomes of transcervical ablation of the endometrium (Brunel University—£425,000 between 1993 and 1999)

  The Department of Health has identified minimal access therapy (MAT) as a high priority for research in its 1993–94 programme.

  The Medical Research Council receives its grant-in-aid from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  GP Fund Holders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount that general practitioner fund holders in each region have saved in their staff and hospital referrals and drug budgets in 1991–92 in real terms and as a percentage of the total staff hospital referral and drug budget in that region.

  Mr. Sackville
  General practitioner fundholders do not have separate budgets for staff, hospital referrals and prescribing. Total savings in 1991–92 were 4 per cent. of budgets set.

  Non-EC Doctors and Dentists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what changes have been made to the 1985 circular HC FP(85)14 on the employment of doctors and dentists from non-EC countries in relation to permit-free training status for the purpose of postgraduate training in hospitals; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what instruction has been given to health authorities on whether work permits for doctors from non-EC countries should be issued for training grade posts after the expiry of the permit-free four-year period.

  Mr. Sackville
  No changes have been made to circular HC(FP)(85)14; nor have any instructions been given to health authorities in relation to the issue of work permits 510
  for training grade posts. Some parts of the guidance in HC(FP)(85)14 are under review, and will shortly be the subject of consultation with interested parties.

  Cancer Vaccine
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cancer vaccine treatment is currently available in the United Kingdom; and if she will list the locations.

  Mr. Sackville
  No cancer vaccine treatment is currently available.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she is undertaking or promoting in respect of cancer vaccines.

  Mr. Sackville
  No research is currently being undertaken by the Department in respect of cancer vaccines. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it is collaborating with leading cancer charities in this area.

  Children's Rights Commissioner
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken by her Department into the feasibility of establishing the post of an independent Children's Rights Commissioner in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  York Health District
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged(a) 65 to 74, (b) 75 to 84 and (c) over 84 years were discharged from a hospital in the former York health district in each of the last 10 years; and, of these people, what percentage were re-admitted to a hospital in the district for treatment (i) in the same specialty or (ii) in a different specialty within (1) one month, (2) three months and (3) six months of their previous discharge.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bryan Askew, chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority, for details.

  Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many newly qualified medical practitioners entered general practice in the United Kingdom in 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 1,250 newly qualified medical practitioners entered general practice in England between 1 July 1991 and 30 June 1992. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations her Department has received concerning the decision of West Midlands regional health
  511
  authority in 1990 to allow its software division employees to remain in the NHS pension scheme after their transfer to employment by the Health Management Trust-FIP Ltd.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware that the Department has received any such representations.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has published on the(a) known and (b) suspected side-effects of anabolic steroids;: and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Centre for Research into Drugs and Health Behaviour recently published the results of a Government-funded study of anabolic steroid use in Great Britain. A copy of the report, entitled "Anabolic Steroid Use in Great Britain—an exploratory investigation", will be placed in the Library. The aim of the study was to explore the extent of anabolic steroid use in gyms, but the report also includes data on effects reported by steroid users themselves.

  Parkfield Sterile Supplies Unit
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that consultation takes place on the proposal to put the Parkfields sterile supplies unit in the west midlands out to tender.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for West Midlands regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Bryan Baker, the chairman of the health authority, for details.

  Dental Practitioners
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will extend the use of the title "doctor" to include general dental practitioners and those employed in the community dental service.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no present plans to do so.

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

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government continue to help small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  It continues to be the policy of the Department and the national health service to provide equal opportunities to all potential suppliers of whatever size, to trade on a value for money basis. This policy underpins all NHS and departmental contracts with suppliers. To help all businesses, a guide on how purchasing is now organised and who to contact, "Purchasing at NHS Supplies", has been published and widely distributed. A copy of the guide will be placed in the Library.

  It is not practicable to monitor centrally the precise extent to which the NHS or the Department make use of
  512
  small businesses. Similarly, it would not affect the way in which we purchase goods and services. Therefore no performance indicators on this subject are currently maintained.

  Computer Consultancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the computer consultancies employed by her Department and agencies, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The full information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The total expenditure on information technology consultancy services by the Department in the years 1991–92 to 1992–93 was as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  12·495

  1992–93

  14·647

  The services covered by this expenditure included advice on procurement and information strategies, the design, development and implementation of the office information system and user support services. Planned expenditure in 1993–94 is £13·661 million.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of(a) private nursing home beds and (b) residential home beds registered in England in total and by local authority each year since 1985; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about newly registered private nursing homes and residential care homes, including bed numbers, is not available centrally.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the future funding of speech therapy training; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received a number of such representations.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her Department's policy on which information produced by her Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print;

  (2) what arrangements her Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by her Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department aims to provide the general public with a wide range of information relating to legislation, policy, patients' rights and other health advice. A number of publications have already been produced for people who are visually impaired. Examples are shown as follows:
  513
  TITLE/TYPE OF PUBLICATION

  Braille

  Patients Charter (also available in audio cassette version).

  NHS Reforms and You (also available in Moon and audio cassette versions).

  Audio Cassette

  Health of the Nation.

  While You Are Pregnant—Safe Eating.

  Elderly Health.

  Community Care Changes in April 1993 (tapes are also available in ethnic minority languages).

  Large Print

  Keep Warm Keep Well (also available in audio cassette version).

  Community Care changes in April 1993.

  Moreover the citizens charter, which calls on public services to make sure information about services is easily accessible to all their users, is putting fresh emphasis on the need for effective communication with those who have special needs, including people who are visually impaired.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what correspondence she has received from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship about the funding of respite services for people with a severe mental illness and their carers; and when she expects to reply.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has received and replied to several letters from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship about a whole range of issues concerning services for people with severe mental illness and their carers.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current recommended concentration of fluoride compound in drinking water; and what plans she has to revise this.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government believe that fluoridation of water to a level of one milligram per litre is the optimal concentration for reducing teeth decay. There are no plans to revise this.

  Degree Funding
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to alter the current arrangements for funding first degrees being undertaken by intending national health service employees; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials of the Department have held discussions with officials of the Department for Education about the arrangements for funding undergraduate courses in speech and language therapy, dietetics and chiropody. No decisions have yet been reached. Any proposals for change which may emerge from these discussions will be considered in consultations with the national health service, professional bodies and higher education institutions. There are no current plans to alter the present arrangements for the purchasing of education and training by regions for other professions employed in the NHS.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the "The Health of the Nation" anniversary events programme.
  514
  Mr. Sackville
  Most of the publications and material produced during the first anniversary of Health of the Nation were fulfilling commitments set out in the White Paper or were an integral part of taking work on implementation forward. The exception was "CMO's Challenge", which was developed and launched as a specific initiative to take forward action on the findings of the first English health survey. The cost of "CMO's Challenge" was £15,000.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the sixth annual report of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship has submitted its sixth report to the United Kingdom Health Ministers and to the Secretary of State for National Heritage. Copies have been placed in the Library. I am very grateful to the committee, and particularly the chairman, Sir John Blelloch, for their valuable work in continuing to monitor the agreements. The report shows that the industry has continued to honour its commitments.

  Health Advisory Service
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the annual report of the NHS Health Advisory Service.

  Mr. Bowis
  The 1992–93 annual report of the National Health Service Health Advisory Service has been published today. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to eliminate posts where junior doctors are contracted to work more than 83 hours per week.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regions have been advised that eliminating the few remaining posts where junior doctors and dentists are contracted for more than 83 hours per week is a priority. We shall be monitoring progress very closely.

  Aycliffe Children's Home
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the report of the social services inspectorate's investigation of Durham county council's inquiries into allegations of injuries to children accommodated in Aycliffe children's home.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have today published this report. Copies will be placed in the Library. The report makes a number of recommendations about the management of Aycliffe and the care of the children which Durham county council will be addressing as a matter of urgency. The chief inspector of the social services inspectorate will monitor developments closely and give advice and guidance where appropriate.
  515

  Dental Instruments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals she has to strengthen, or make mandatory, guidelines issued to dentists on sterilising dental instruments.

  Mr. Sackville
  The chief dental officer will shortly be issuing a further reminder to all dentists of the importance of adhering strictly to the recommended standards of cross-infection control.

  Birth Defects
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number and percentage of birth defects among live births in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for 1982–91 (the latest year for which information is available) is shown in the table.

  Number and percentage of birth defects among livebirths 1982–91 England and Wales

  Year

  Numbers1

  Livebirths

  Percentage

  1982

  12,732

  625,931

  2·03

  1983

  13,444

  629,134

  2·14

  1984

  13,546

  636,818

  2·13

  1985

  12,949

  656,417

  1·97

  1986

  12,758

  661,018

  1·93

  1987

  13,129

  681,511

  1·93

  1988

  12,723

  693,577

  1·83

  1989

  12,191

  687,725

  1·77

  1990

  7,941

  706,140

  1·12

  1991

  6,889

  699,217

  0·99

  1 The congenital malformation notification system is voluntary and is usually linked to the statutory system of birth notification to local

  The 1992–93 figures will be available by December 1993. Figures are not available for future years.

  Regional health authorities gross expenditure £000

  RHA

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Northern

  46,185

  55,691

  64,234

  71,150

  63,474

  Yorkshire

  70,463

  70,801

  76,187

  94,300

  65,094

  Trent

  73,401

  81,274

  77,848

  111,458

  174,284

  East Anglian

  27,606

  29,435

  29,440

  42,595

  45,648

  North West Thames

  50,360

  59,999

  65,161

  102,830

  57,619

  North East Thames

  55,687

  76,422

  69,967

  80,198

  189,715

  South East Thames

  63,769

  66,668

  76,734

  77,299

  250,032

  South West Thames

  103,166

  110,282

  131,677

  123,865

  149,077

  Wessex

  55,523

  56,683

  86,441

  71,823

  25,017

  Oxford

  33,377

  43,945

  50,165

  56,482

  49,363

  South Western

  41,357

  45,207

  54,589

  63,013

  86,185

  West Midlands

  106,307

  82,442

  112,625

  137,810

  111,014

  Mersey

  46,641

  26,245

  24,357

  42.S80

  23,961

  North Western

  88,869

  88,340

  87,673

  91,032

  65,151

  Source: Annual accounts of regional health authorities. (Figures are not adjusted for inflation).

  Notes to the table:

  1. The figures for the years prior to 1991–92 vary between RHAs as regions were managed in an integrated way and the balance of management between RHAs and their respective district health authorities (DHAs) differed between regions. The figures were also affected by other factors including differences in the geographical size of regions, in the number of DHAs they included and in the extent to which RHAs directly managed operational services.

  2. Following the implementation of the NHS reforms the role of RHAs is changing and this has a major impact on the figures for 1991–92. There are significant variations in the extent to which:RHAs have retained or devolved management, support and operational services functions and in the extent to which their costs are borne or recharged to users. Some RHAs are directly involved in the purchaser function while the figures for others include additional significant costs—notably the payment of funds for nursing and other staff training to health providers.

  Live Births
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the tables published on pages 26 and 32–33 of HC 624, for what percentage of live births in
  516
  health authorities which has existed since 1926. The local health authorities extract from the birth notifications details of babies born with malformations. This information is commonly supplemented with details obtained from midwives, hospitals, doctors and health visitors. The purpose of this system is primarily to detect changes in the frequency of reporting any particular malformation or group of malformations rather than trying to estimate prevalence at birth. Only malformations detected at or within 10 days of birth are currently included in the system, to ensure rapid reporting and thus fast detection of any increase in reporting levels. The system does however provide the most extensive data on prevalance levels available in England and Wales.

  Prior to 1990 all malformations, however minor, were reportable to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS). In January 1990 an exclusion list was introduced describing the minor anomalies which should no longer be notified. Therefore data are riot comparable for the period before 1990 and for 1990 onwards.

  For more information on congenital malformations refer to OPCS publication, series MB3, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total gross expenditure of each regional health authority in each of the last five years; and what is the projected expenditure for the next two years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Gross expenditure figures by regional health authority (RHA) for the financial years 1987–88 to 1991–92 are shown in the table. The 1991–92 figures are not comparable with those for earlier years and should be interpreted with caution. Simple comparisons between authorities is misleading because RHAs devolved their non-core functions at varying times and bore different costs on their regional budgets.

  1990–91 the data for the maternity tail of the hospital episodes statistics were submitted from the South Western and West Midlands regional health authorities.
  517
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: Neither health authority submitted any of the additional data collected within the hospital episode statistics "maternity tail".

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new measures his Department proposes to stimulate increased levels of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Investment will be encouraged by the profitable and competitive manufacturing base which our policies are designed to ensure.

  Creative Accounting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to make under which the sale of creative accounting schemes by auditors to their audit clients would become an offence.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to limit companies' freedom to seek accountancy advice.

  A. F. Budge (Construction)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he or his Department have had with A. F. Budge (Construction).

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Limited went into administrative receivership on 4 January 1993 and compulsory liquidation on 24 February of the same year. There are provisions requiring the receiver to make a note on the public record at Companies House and to advertise his appointment from which my department would become aware of the receivership.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he was informed of the receivership of A. F. Budge (Construction); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Limited went into administrative receivership on 4 January 1993 and compulsory liquidation on 24 February of the same year. I am not aware of any discussions between my department and the receivers or the company except matters relating to the administration of the insolvency proceedings.

  Fossil Fuel Decarbonisation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the research projects undertaken by his Department into fossil fuel decarbonisation schemes since April 1992; and what plans he has to develop fossil fuel decarbonisation demonstration projects.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department is taking part with British Coal, and with support from National Power and PowerGen, in a study programme under the auspices of the International Energy Agency—the IEA greenhouse gases research and development programme—to evaluate the feasibility and costs of capture and safe disposal of 518
  carbon dioxide from large fossil fuel combustion plant. This began in 1991 and is due for completion in autumn, 1994. A total of thirteen countries, and the European Commission, are cooperating in this programme.

  In addition, my Department is contributing to a complementary review, by the British Geological Survey and British Coal under the European Community's JOULE II research programme, of the scope for permanent, underground storage of carbon dioxide in Europe. This two-year review began in January 1993.

  It would be premature to develop demonstration projects ahead of the completion of these initial feasibility studies.

  British Standards
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to secure that any future revision of British standards include specific reference to the needs of disabled people.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Any future revision of a British Standard is a matter primarily for the responsible Committee of the British Standards institution. The Institution is independent of Government.

  I am advised that where appropriate the needs of disabled people are taken into account when British standards are prepared.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the timing for changes he will be making to the assisted areas map; and what arrangements will be made for grant applications from businesses in areas which are to lose status caught up by those changes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The European Commission cleared yesterday the Government's proposals for the new assisted areas map of Great Britain. I have today signed the order to bring the new map into effect. It will be laid before Parliament today.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have today written to all hon. Members to advise them of the changes. We have issued jointly a background document setting out the new map and explaining how the review of the map was conducted. Copies of this document are available in the Vote Office.

  The new map will come into operation on 1 August. This allows nine days' notice so that businesses which have been engaged in pre-application discussions with departments under the various regional schemes will have an opportunity to complete formal application procedures before the changes take effect. Offers which have already been made will be honoured.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the next round of offshore licensing for oil and gas exploration.

  Mr. Eggar
  No decision has been taken yet as to whether or when there will be another round of offshore oil and gas licensing.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that discharges of all
  519
  oil contaminated cuttings from exploration and appraisal wells are prohibited in line with Her Majesty's Government's commitment at paragraph 28.1(iii) of the final declaration of the third international conference on the protection of the North sea; and by what date he expects the prohibition to take effect;

  (2) by what date Her Majesty's Government expect to prohibit discharges of all oil contaminated cuttings in United Kingdom waters in line with their commitment at the third international conference on the protection of the North sea (paragraph 28.1(i) of the final declaration); and what steps he is taking to ensure this commitment is met.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions on 22 September 1992, Ministers approved a PARCOM decision on the use of oil-based muds. This decision did not prohibit discharges of oil-contaminated cuttings, but set out definitions, rules and principles to avoid marine pollution from this source. The rules and principles state that the average oil content on cuttings discharged into the sea shall not exceed the target standard of an average 10 grammes of oil per kilogramme of dry cuttings. This standard is to be achieved as soon as possible and practicable and, in any event, have full effect for exploration and appraisal drilling no later than 31 December 1993 and for all wells no later than 31 December 1996.

  Discharge of oil cuttings is an offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, unless an exemption from this provision has been granted under section 23. All exemptions are subject to conditions which require the operator to comply with the PARCOM decision, and to sample, analyse and report to the Department the oil content of the discharged cuttings.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the regulations governing environmental and pollution control the deregulation unit is examining.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  All regulations affecting business are being reviewed by the deregulation task forces and by Government Departments.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members and advisers of the deregulation unit.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There are 49 civil servants in the deregulation unit, including seven full-time secondees from the private sector. A list of the membership of the deregulation task forces is in the Library.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Radiocommunications Agency for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have set the agency a range of key targets for 1993–94 which will appear in the agency's annual report for 1992–93. In addition to achieving an efficiency improvement of 4 per cent., it will also be required to meet the following quality of service targets covering its licensing work and enforcement activities:
  520
  Licensing

  99 per cent. of new aeronautical and aircraft applicants and amendments to be processed within three working days;

  90 per cent. of ships' radio licences to be issued within one month;

  98 per cent. of maritime business radio cases to be processed within one month;

  99 per cent. of new on-site paging applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within four working days;

  90 per cent. of new private mobile radio applications and amendments that require no international coordination to be processed and despatched within 15 and 20 working days respectively.

  Enforcement

  100 per cent. of safety of life services complaints to be handled within 24 hours;

  98 per cent. of business complaints to be handled within five working days; and

  98 per cent. of domestic complaints to be handled within one month.

  In addition, I have set the chief executive of the agency the personal target of replying within 10 working days to letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  EC Directives
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the EC directives affecting British industry which have been implemented in the United Kingdom before the actual date on which they were required to take effect.

  Mr. Needham
  The detailed information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In general, EC directives are implemented on the actual date on which they are required to take effect.

  EC Standards
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect on British manufacturing industry's investment planning of delays in agreeing EC standards.

  Mr. Needham
  No such estimate has been made by my Department. We are, however, concerned that the rate at which CEN and CENELEC produce the standards for use in relation to single market legislation is too slow and will be discussing with Community partners and national standards bodies what steps might be taken to improve the position. The Government are engaged in a review of future United Kingdom resourcing of the preparation of standards (Official Report, 10 June 1993, column 302) and welcome views on the best approach to the United Kingdom's input to European standards' committees.

  Co-operative Projects
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what projects have been funded since January 1990 under the arrangements, consequent to the winding up of the Co-operative Development Agency, for providing £200,000 a year for three years for innovative co-operative projects; if he will list the dates on which the funding commenced and the amount provided; and how many applications were rejected.
  521
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: The Government have contributed or committed in excess of £475,000 since January 1991 to fund 16 development projects to help improve the business performance and

  Contractors

  Project(s)

  Start date

  Budget

  United Kingdom Co-operative Council (UKCC)

  Pump-priming United Kingdom Co-operative Council

  1 April 1991

  90,000

  Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM)

  Kitemark-Workers Code of Practice

  3 April 1992

  30,000

  Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM)

  Promotion of Co-ops to Corporate Purchasers

  3 April 1992

  40,000

  David Hall Partnership

  Co-op Research - Successful Co-operation

  26 June 1992

  26,157

  United Kingdom Co-operative Council (UKCC)

  Pump-priming United Kingdom Co-operative Council

  1 April 1992

  45,000

  Industrial Common Ownership Finance (ICOF)

  Financial Needs Analysis

  17 June 1992

  39,422

  Scottish Wholefoods Collective Warehouse (SWCW)

  Consultancy Network

  7 July 1992

  23,325

  Scottish Co-op Development Company (SCDC)

  Phoenix Co-operative Initiative

  13 May 1992

  40,500

  Plunkett Foundation

  Training provision for Directors of Co-ops

  26 March 1992

  18,802

  Plunkett Foundation

  Ownership options for Public Services

  26 March 1992

  20,388

  Open University

  Community Care

  17 June 1992

  32,943

  Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM)

  Turnaround Courses

  4 February 1993

  4,700

  Nottingham Co-operative Development Agency

  Marketing Group Guides

  15 March 1993

  4,339

  Industrial Common Ownership Movement

  Dissemination of Promotion of Co-ops to Corporate Purchasers

  September 1993

  6,500

  Plunkett Foundation

  Dissemination of Ownership Options for Public Services

  September 1993

  7,745

  Plunkett Foundation

  Dissemination of Training provision for Directors of Co-ops

  October 1993

  7,500

  Open University

  Dissemination of Community Care Project

  September 1993

  4,700

  Open University

  Directory of Worker Co-ops in the United Kingdom

  June 1993

  9,988

  Open University

  Workshop on Co-op Development Activities

  June 1993

  3,067

  Scottish Co-operative Development Company (SCDC)

  Dissemination of Phoenix Co-operative Initiative

  September 1993

  8,000

  Baker Brown Associates

  Pathways to Co-operation

  June 1993

  22,266

  United Kingdom Co-operative Council (UKCQ/Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM)

  Co-ops for One Stop Shops

  September 1993

  30,000

  Scottish Wholefoods Collective Warehouse (SWCW)

  Printing and Dissemination of Consultancy Network Report

  August 1993

  4,200

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to continue funding innovative co-operative projects; and what sums are available in the current financial year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: My Department is currently supporting a number of development projects relating to co-operative businesses and has already committed over £100,000 to these in the current financial year. We do not plan to make any further funding available specifically to support co-operative projects but will be assisting in their relationships with business links.
  522
  competitiveness of co-operative businesses. Twenty-eight proposals have not been supported. The list of supported projects is shown in the table.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: The appointments of British Coal Corporation members are subject to the provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation (National Coal Board) Regulations 1946.

  Regulation 3 in essence requires members

  (a) to disclose to my right hon. Friend full particulars of any interest or securities held or acquired in any undertaking carrying on a business similar to that at any time carried on by the corporation; and

  (b) to disclose at a meeting of the members of the corporation any direct or indirect interest in a contract made or proposed by the Corporation.

  I have no present plans to revise those regulations.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers-Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
Earl Sondes—Took the Oath.

EC Commission: UK Staff
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many staff are employed by the Commission of the European Communities in Brussels, and how many of those staff are British citizens.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, there are 14,802 officials employed by the European Commission in permanent and temporary positions. Of those, 1,190 are British. In the administrative grades, 527 out of a total of 4,534 officials are British.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting information. Can he say who is responsible for the size of the establishment of the Commission, and whether whoever it is seeks to achieve economies by effecting reductions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is up to the Commission within the budget agreed by Ministers of ECOFIN to decide the amount of permanent and temporary staff it requires. It does of course consider that specific issue. My noble friend may be interested to know that although there are 14,802 officials employed by the European Commission, there are 14,400 staff in the Department of Transport. There are 12,800 serving the London Borough of Croydon; 15,000 serving Gloucestershire County Council; 17,600 serving Fife region; and 14,800 serving Gwent County Council.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the House has the greatest admiration for the borough of Gloucester and the way it goes about its task? Is he further aware that if the European Commission had to deal with the problems created by the exodus of mentally ill people from hospitals into the community, the number of staff at the Commission would probably have to treble? Will he state why the preliminary draft budget of the Community for 1994 indicates an increase in administrative expenditure by the Commission of £143 million despite the fact that Maastricht has not yet come into operation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no. I regret that I was not at the appropriate meeting at which the matter was discussed, but I shall find out.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend say how many officials administer the common agricultural policy; and how does that compare with those employed in our own Ministry of Agriculture?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton asks a question to which I do not know the answer. I shall find out.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that as a country we have somewhat below our share of civil servants in the Commission? Does he believe that that may have something to do with the relatively low level of language skills of officials? A recent survey of the European Companion indicates that of the British civil servants who work in the Commission at Brussels, we and the Irish share the position of being the worst linguists? The Dutch are at the top of the table. Does he believe that that reflects on our foreign language teaching in schools?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, overall, in percentage terms, we should have about 15 per cent. of officials working for the European Commission. In the A grades, we have about 11.6 per cent. In total, we have about 8 per cent. We seek every way possible to increase that percentage. We hope that a number of people will come forward at the next round.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, with regard to the British employees of the Commission, will the Minister say whether any measures are taken to prevent them going native like our British cornmissioners?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thought that being British was being native.
Lord Howell: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell us how many British officials are working on the social protocol? Related to that, does he agree that they are doing excellent work?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, every British official is doing excellent work.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer my noble friend's important question on the linguistic ability of the Brits compared with our European counterparts, or does he not understand English as well as French?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we hope that a number of people will come forward and obviously, to some extent, linguistic skill is necessary. However, the grade of French which an applicant needs is somewhere between GCSE and A-level.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not a general law that the linguistic ability of a country is in inverse proportion to its size? May that not explain why the Netherlands and Ireland have the lowest linguistic ability?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords. I listened with care to what my noble and learned friend said. It may also have something to do with geographical position.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend give the proportion, approximately, of the staff who are engaged full-time and part-time in

899
interpreting and translating documents? Can he say whether any attempt is being made at rationalisation, with the prospect of more languages within the Community within the next three years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are 1,576 linguists working for the European Commission, of whom 188 come from the United Kingdom. However, as my noble friend rightly points out, there will probably be a need for more when other languages are introduced.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as a native who has returned—if I may put it that way—I am grateful to the noble Earl for putting the size of the Commission's bureaucracy in context. Does he agree that it is likely that in this country the Department of Agriculture employs as many people as the Department of Transport? If that is so, since the Department of Transport employs 14,000 people, as the noble Earl told us this morning, and since the Commission as a whole employs only 14,000 people, it seems likely that fewer people are employed in looking after the agricultural policy of the whole Community than are employed in looking after the agricultural policy of the United Kingdom.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is it not true that Britain is under-represented, particularly in the higher ranks of the Commission's services, the A grades? Can the noble Earl tell us whether anything is being done to try to redress that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right to mention MAFF. There are several departments such as MAFF, the DTI, the Home Office and the department of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whose staff number between 10,000 and 13,000. Some other departments are bigger.
With regard to the under-representation which the noble Lord raised, yes, we are under-represented. We seek in a number of ways to encourage people to take up employment in the European Commission to continue the good work for Britain.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the gratuitous information which he added to his Answer in respect of the number of staff in organisations in this country. Can he say whether any of the staff whom he enumerated are paid at anything like the rate of the Brussels bureaucracy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the information may have been gratuitous, but I also hope that it was helpful to my noble friend. No, I do not know what the wage level comparison is.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, does the low number of English people employed in the Commission also account for the fact that we have the least number of directors general in the 23 directorates, while the French, I believe, have four and the Germans five?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the number of people from England who are employed in the Commission, but I have been able to give the
900
British figures to my noble friend. I know that there are some extremely good Scots, as usual doing a wonderful job, and also some Welshmen. I say that for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. We are better represented in the A grades than in the lower grades, but we wish to see more British people in all grades.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for what he has just said. However, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, said in his supplementary question, can the noble Earl give me an assurance that the Welsh, Scots and English are reasonably represented on the Commission—the British element of the Commission?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly believe so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say who appoints the A grades and how they are appointed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is a quota for the A.1 and A.2 grades. How the appointment is carried out I do not know, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as a former Commissioner, would be able to help me on this occasion.
Lord Richard: My Lords, that is one of those slightly arcane areas which successive governments over the years have felt should be a little shrouded.

Taxation
11.17 a.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to increase the level of taxation in response to pressure from the finance Ministers of other European Community countries, as widely reported in the Press.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the level of taxation in the United Kingdom is entirely a matter for Parliament to decide.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that not wholly unexpected reply. Does he agree that the day before yesterday his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hinted to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Treasury and the Civil Service that the VAT base might well be widened? That was clearly in response to the pressures exerted on him in Brussels on 12th July to lower our Budget deficit, in conformity with our prospective obligations under the Maastricht Treaty.
If and when this wretched treaty is ratified, does the noble Earl agree that under the provisions of Articles 104c and 109e, Her Majesty's Government will be legally obliged to submit to such pressures to raise taxes or slash public spending, or both, so as to reduce our deficit?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I disagree fundamentally with the noble Lord. He takes one view. The true view is that the level of taxation in the United Kingdom is entirely a matter for Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that continuous pressure is exercised by the Commission and in ECOFIN, as the occasion arises, for Britain to increase her indirect taxes, particularly VAT, to become more in conformity with taxes on the continent? The pressure is continuous. Can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that pressure will continue to be resisted to the utmost, whatever is in the sixth directive? In order to make it quite clear, will the noble Earl agree that it is high time—as indeed the Prime Minister indicated at the meeting in Copenhagen—for the meetings of ECOFIN to be made public rather than to take place in secret?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly remember at the ECOFIN councils that I attended discussions about levels of VAT, not just in this country but throughout the other countries in the European Community. I can assure the noble Lord that the same robust stance is being taken now as was taken in my day.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the level of taxation depends upon government commitment—whether it be to defence, social costs or Europe—and is decided on that basis however that taxation is inflicted, be it directly or indirectly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are a number of factors, of which my noble friend mentioned some, that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer needs to take into account when setting his Budget and the level of taxation.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are we to gather from the Minister's Answer to an earlier Question that the Government intend to ratify the Maastricht Treaty, and then take no notice at all of its provisions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong. That is not what I said.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the rate of vehicle excise duty, despite the increase last year, still lags behind the inflation that has taken place over the years? Does he agree that, were it to be increased, that would not only produce useful extra taxation but, in so far as it discouraged the number of cars, would reduce the need for more public expenditure on projects such as the M.25, and would therefore strike a "double whammy" at the PSBR?
The Earl of Caithness: I am surprised that my noble friend did not go on to say that it would encourage more people to take to bicycles, which I believe is what was behind his question. I take note of what my noble friend says.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in an interview broadcast on the "Today" programme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was the Government's objective to balance the budget? Can the Minister tell us why that is the
902
Government's objective? Can he also tell us by how much taxation will have to be increased to achieve that goal?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I look forward to discussing these kinds of matters when we come to the Finance Bill, when I am sure the noble Lord will wish to take part in the debate. His question is considerably wider than that on the Order Paper.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister continue to reject the allegations that British taxation policy is somehow or other determined by pressure from other finance Ministers of the other countries inside the Community? Will he also take notice of the fact that., were the Government to put VAT on such items as children's clothing and public transport, as well as on domestic fuel, we would not accept any suggestion that that was due to anything other than the decision of the British Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question: yes, let me reaffirm is nothing to do with pressure from the European Community countries. The level of taxation in the United Kingdom is a matter for Parliament to decide.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl deny that under Articles 104c and 109e of the Maastricht Treaty, the United Kingdom, like every other country, is obliged to do everything in its power to reduce the deficit to less than 3 per cent. of GDP before 1st January 1994; and that in practice that can only come about through higher taxation or slashed public spending?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord excludes growth in his calculations. As I said in the discussion that we had in this House not so many days ago on this particular matter, the objectives set out for the control of public expenditure and for running the economy are very similar to those of the Government.

Bus and Coach Operators
11.24 a.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will promote a national code of practice for bus and coach operators which will make the protection of vulnerable passengers a matter of national priority rather than local discretion.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the protection of vulnerable passengers is a matter for the operators. The Bus and Coach Council code of conduct for bus and coach drivers pays particular attention to customer care, including the special needs of elderly and disabled people. It is up to the operators to ensure that their staff carry out their work in accordance with the code.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which is as expected. Is he aware of the origin of my Question? A young girl was turned off a bus recently, in the evening, for want of 2p, and was subsequently foully assaulted and then raped.

903
Furthermore, two people with learning disabilities in this area—namely, London and Reading—have also recently been subject to (shall we say?) discriminatory practices on the part of the bus crew. A young man was turned off a bus in London recently because he produced his pass which operated from 9 o'clock in the morning and he was on the bus at 8.30. He was thrown out into a neighbourhood with which he was totally unfamiliar. A young woman with—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Rix: Is the Minister aware that a young woman with learning disability in Reading was recently driven into the bus garage, the garage was locked up and she was left apparently overnight? Surely these instances—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I know that he is very concerned about these matters, but he is extending the use of Parliamentary Questions to rather longer lengths than normal. If the noble Lord would be kind enough to put the question to which he seeks an answer from my noble friend as briefly as possible, I believe it would be with the approval of your Lordships.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. I shall be as brief as possible. In view of these incidents and others, and with the advent of vulnerable people taking advantage of public transport as a result of the policy of care in the community, would it be advisable for the Government or the department at least to issue guidelines for the practice of bus crews around the country? Does he agree that common sense and common courtesy alone could be recommended?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it was entirely because of the incidents to which the noble Lord refers, and other incidents which he did not mention, that I changed the Answer to give him the Answer I gave today. It was specifically because of that. I am sure that the whole House regrets the terrible incidents that have happened, and particularly those that have happened recently. That is why I said that it is up to the operators to ensure that their staff carry out their work in accordance with the code. That code has been very carefully drafted with the help of the department. If the Government were to issue a code, it would be almost identical to that which the Bus and Coach Council operates now.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has single-handedly done more for vulnerable and disabled people than perhaps the Government have collectively? Will the Minister indicate how many of the privatised bus services and coach companies have developed special standards of care and of service for particularly vulnerable passengers? Does he agree that it is high time that the Citizen's Charter was extended to people who are vulnerable in this sense and who have real grievances but who would now have to look to the courts in order to gain any redress, which is almost impossible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly join with the noble Lord in paying tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. And I would go further —I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will not mind. I pay tribute to what this House has done for disabled people and others. I remember from my own experience of health debates some of the work that this House has done. My noble friend Lord Renton has been particularly involved in that work. Some of the incidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred have taken place on London buses recently. What is important is that the operators use the code of conduct and take the appropriate management measures to make certain that their operators abide by the code and the appropriate action should they not abide by the code.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, following on from that answer, what redress is currently available to people who are vulnerable and who are put into this position? Does the Minister agree that to look to the courts at the present time is really quite absurd? Does he accept that there is a lack of available legal aid and that the sums of money available for redress are likely to be very small? Will he further accept that it is right that the privileges extended by the Citizen's Charter should be extended to cases such as this?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Citizen's Charter is designed not so much for the private sector but for the public sector. That is why it affects London buses. What is more important is that there is the Citizen's Charter and it is for every operator to abide by the highest standards for all its passengers.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Highway Code is issued by a Secretary of State under a statutory power whereas the other code to which he referred is not issued by a Secretary of State? Will the Government consider enhancing the value of that code by ensuring that it is issued by a Minister responsible to Parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I looked very carefully at that matter in preparation for the Question today. The Government have the overall responsibility, which is why the Highway Code is published by the department and the Secretary of State. But, as the noble Lord knows, we consult very closely with the Bus and Coach Council. We believe that it is more appropriate for them to operate in that way with our support. That does not necessarily mean that there will have to be regulations coming through Parliament whenever small changes are needed and improvements need to be made at short notice.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, may I develop the question asked by my noble friend Lord Renton? Could my noble friend consider providing that when a new driver takes his test he is examined on a form of code or asked some questions? Will he accept that a driver is trained to be a driver and is not necessarily trained in customer care, and that might be a good thing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend has a point. That is why first of all there is a code of practice and secondly there is encouragement to

905
drivers to undertake assessments leading to a national vocational qualification, which is a nationally recognised standard. I perused some of those forms yesterday. They are quite detailed and very helpful for passenger care.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the code issued by a Secretary of State in order to afford redress, as indeed was a reasonable suggestion made on both sides of the House, would have to be introduced by a clause in primary legislation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is right. That is why, when I answered my noble friend Lord Renton, I said that we believe that a code such as that operated by the Bus and Coach Council allows for more flexibility without regulations having to be made. It can therefore be adapted more quickly to needs when any lacuna is found.

Statute Law Repeals Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Highland Regional Council (Wester Bridge) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

National Lottery etc. Bill
11.34 a.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the National Lottery etc. Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved the amendment:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Betting. Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963
(". Paragraph 13(a) of Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 shall ceas to have effect").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that we may take this matter quite shortly because we have been round this course twice already. One reason why I come back to the subject is that on Report the noble Earl questioned the basis for the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggesting that the noble Lord had founded his argument on the wrong section of the wrong Act. Having regard to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, I feel that that was extremely unlikely. But in case the noble Earl is still unhappy about the matter, I have now founded the same argument upon the schedule to the 1963 Act which was the foundation for the House of Lords case which went right up to this House. The judgment of the court was delivered by lord Pearson.
I am sorry that the amendment does not on the face of it explain what it is about. However, the facts are
906
quite straightforward and are non-controversial. The facts are that the football pools started out as a competition which consisted overwhelmingly of a game of skill, whereby the punters each week attempted to forecast the results of the football matches of the following Saturday. But as time went on the football pools were transformed overwhelmingly into a gigantic lottery, so that less than a fortnight ago a letter was received from the managing director of Littlewoods Pools, who wrote:
"90 per cent. of [our clients] tend to use the same numbers on the coupon week after week".
So obviously those people are using the pools as a lottery. The question is whether that is legal.
The pools promoters claim that it is legal because, they say, the pools provide an opportunity for their clients to exercise skill in forecasting the matches. But unfortunately for the promoters, Lord Pearson, delivering the judgment of the court, came to the opposite conclusion, having listened to the arguments in favour of their proposition. Perhaps I may just refer briefly to the salient points of Lord Pearson's judgment. He said:
"For the 99 per cent. in any week, who make no forecast but win prizes if their numbers happen to be lucky numbers for that week, the competition has the character of a lottery. For them the distribution of the prizes depends entirely on chance and no element of skill is involved. Is the competition saved from being a lottery by the fact that the participants have in each week an option to substitute chosen numbers, involving a choice of teams, and on the average 1 per cent of them exercise the option in any week? In my opinion it is not saved from being a lottery by that fact. In substance and reality what is offered is a lottery available to all the participants, but there is associated with it an option to opt out of the lottery in a particular week and try to win a prize by making a forecast. This option is something collateral to the lottery and does not take away its character as a lottery".
I fear that unless the Government are prepared now to accept the amendment, the anti-gaming Lobby will start a new prosecution against a football pool for running an illegal lottery.
On the strength of the judgment of Lord Pearson, the chances must be that there will be a conviction. All hell will then be let loose. At present the pools are bobbing along to the entire satisfaction of promoters and their clients; they will be thrown into confusion. The Government will then have to table an amendment to legalise the status quo of the football pools. All I ask is that the Government take the opportunity now to legalise the status quo of the football pools.
In Committee, the noble Earl said something which he may now regret and wish to take back. At col. 1627 on 8th July he said,
"But whereas the national lottery will be promoted to benefit good causes, the lotteries run by Littlewoods, Vernon's, Zetters and so forth will be promoted for commercial gain".
I did not know that the Government were against commercial gain; I do not find that theme in the Railways Bill, for instance. In any event, the football pools, on top of their commercial gain and on top of paying magnificent winnings to the Chancellor of the Exchequer every Saturday, still manage to provide £60 million for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I hope that that puts the matter into perspective and that the noble Earl will wish to think about it again. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said with a great deal of truth that we have been round the course twice already. He is a persistent rider, and today he is going round for a third time.
The noble Lord says that I said that there was a difference between the football pools and the lotteries because football pools are basically run as commercial businesses. That is perfectly true. I do not deny for a moment that they contribute to good causes; they do. But much of the money which goes to good causes is because of the revenue which is foregone, and it is money from punters. The essential distinction is that the football pools are basically set up as a commercial exercise whereas the national lottery is set up to benefit good causes.
On this occasion the noble Lord has produced a rather different amendment. I am afraid, however, that it still would not achieve his objective. Disapplying paragraph 13(a) of Schedule 2 to the Betting. Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 will not change the fact that a registered pool promoter, such as Littlewoods, Vernon's and Zetters, is, nevertheless, carrying on a pool betting business. If a pool promoter promoted his competitions as lotteries, rather than as a form of betting, then he would fall foul of Section 1 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 which provides that all lotteries are unlawful, with the exception of those lotteries which are made legal by that Act. So the noble Lord's latest amendment gets us nowhere.
The noble Lord rests his case on the judgment of Lord Pearson in the case of Singette Ltd. and others v. Martin. But, as I sought to explain last week on Report, there is a substantial difference between the football pools which are conducted today and the competition which was promoted by Singette Ltd.
In the Singette case, participation was essentially a passive exercise. The promoter simply allocated numbers to each entrant. In contrast, participation in today's football pools is an active exercise in that the entrant must select his or her own numbers. He actually has to do something. In selecting the numbers the opportunity is available for the participant to exercise his skill. But as Lord Pearson pointed out in his judgment, a person who has no knowledge of football cannot use any skill and, even a person who has such knowledge, may choose not to make use of it. But the opportunity is there for skill to be used. The pools companies cannot compel an entrant to exercise skill when making his or her selection. Given that distinction between the pools as they are presently operated and the competition as it was run by Singette Ltd., there is really no need—or justification—for a change in the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, says that people use the pools as a lottery. That may be the noble Lord's view; indeed it may even be the case. The point is not whether a person is using the pool as a lottery, but whether the pool is a lottery. The pool is not a lottery because one has the opportunity of using skill.
The noble Lord, Lord Airdale, would have a better case if the pools companies were to market their football pools as a lottery but fail to tell prospective participants that the object of the exercise was to
908
forecast the result of football matches. But that does not happen. I quote from the terms and conditions which are printed on one of Vernon's standing forecast entry forms. It says:
"I [that is, the entrant] understand that the numbers on my Standing Entry coupon serve to identify the matches appearing in the current coupon/fixture list for each week as published in certain newspapers. I understand I can change my forecast at any time".
It is clear therefore that the pools are marketed as a game of skill. How any particular entrant makes his or her selection is a matter for them. Last week we heard my noble friend Lord Brabazon—who is closely associated with the pools industry through the Foundation for Sport and the Arts —confirm that the pools are indeed a game of skill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will now exercise his skill and realise that his argument, for once, is flawed.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Earl has undoubtedly taken great trouble. I advise him to read the judgment of Lord Pearson again. I do not believe that he has quite grasped the essence of it.
I am in good company with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. In the opinion of the noble Earl we both chose the wrong section of the wrong Act upon which to found our amendments. I do not know whether the noble Earl is right in that regard. But I do not wish to pursue the matter further. I shall await events and see whether another prosecution is brought forward by the anti-gambling lobby. If it is, and if all hell is let loose and the Government have to rush in with legislation, I shall do my best not to say, "I told you so". In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.50 a.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. The Bill has been extensively debated in your Lordships' House, and I would not wish to detain your Lordships for longer than is necessary to extol the virtues of a measure which has had, on the whole, a very good reception. There is no doubt that the scrutiny which your Lordships have given it, laced with a mixture of knowledge, enthusiasm and even, sometimes, hopeful anticipation, have made it even better than when it first came here.
In considering the way in which this innovative piece of legislation has been so greatly improved there should be a number of prizes awarded. I would not wish to enter into a lottery to determine who deserves the highest prize or praise. I should, however, like to thank those on the Front Benches opposite for their considered co-operation in ensuring the Bill a smooth passage.
The noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord McIntosh, from the Labour Front Bench, and the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Redesdale, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, have played a notable part. I thank them for the helpful way in which they put their arguments. I referred in an earlier debate to my noble friend Lord Swinfen as being like a person who had been given a slice of cake but who then returned and wanted the icing and the candle as

909
well. In Committee my noble friend sought to ensure that the limits on turnover for society and local lotteries were varied yet further from those increases already made so that in the event the turnover of individual society lotteries has increased from the current limits of £180,000 to £1 million and the prizes from £12,000 to £100,000. That is a tremendous increase. A formidable feast—slices of cake, icing, candles and the box too!
I remember that there was a schoolboy whose half term report consisted of one word—"trying". His parents were absolutely delighted. His end of term report consisted of two words—"very trying". If I were my noble friend's schoolmaster, I would have used the same single word for his half term report—"trying". His end of term report would have been of one word too—"succeeded".
I realise that my noble friend's "gluttony" or "success"—whichever metaphor he may choose to align himself with—was not for himself but for those whose interests he sought to represent; namely, charities and those who run charitable lotteries.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft made similar points about charities, as did the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I hope that both feel that charities have had a good deal from the Bill.
The Bill will mean a great deal to the good causes which stand to benefit. That is, of course, its purpose. We heard a great deal from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and others, on arts and on films. My noble friend Lord Cavendish, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and other noble Lords gave their views on heritage. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke with his usual authority on the subject of sport. I hope that all feel that we have taken the interests of their chosen subjects very much to heart throughout the Bill.
The aim of the national lottery is clearly to benefit good causes, with the ultimate aim of improving the quality of life of the people in our country. It also offers the opportunity for us to look back on, and to reflect on, the best of the old millennium while looking forward to the new one and the exciting projects which will be funded by the Millennium Commission. It will also enable us to enhance the valuable role played by the charitable and voluntary sector and by those who participate in the work which they undertake.
We think it right that the lottery will be run by the private sector. The need to earn a profit will sharpen up the operator so that he runs his operation as efficiently and successfully as possible within the rules which will be provided. Your Lordships were concerned that the lottery should be conducted with dignity and in a well regulated way, and in this respect the post of director general will be important. He—or she—will be the watchdog—or bitch—who will ensure that the lottery is run for the nation in a way which reflects the ideals and the aspirations which inspired its establishment. The director general will agree codes of conduct for advertising and other matters with the successful licensee.
Lotteries are important for a great number and variety of charitable organisations, both large and
910
small. Lotteries run by particular societies will more than ever be patronised by people whose motivation is to contribute to the good causes which they represent.
We had some discussion on the football pools, much of it inspired by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the possible effects on them of the introduction of the national lottery. My noble friend was anxious to see that what is at present being done illegally should be made legal—arid as soon as possible too, please. Well, we even met him on that; at least part of the way.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was convinced that all football pools are lotteries, that they always have been, and that there is no skill involved. I do not .think that my limited powers of oratory ever persuaded him that that was wrong. I had another shot this morning but to no avail. That was because of my own limitations and not the noble Lord's.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I never said that the pools had always been a lottery.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would need to go back and look at Hansard, but the noble Lord certainly left me with that very vigorous impression. If I misquoted him, I would be the first to apologise. However, all his intervention has done is to stimulate me to look at Hansard to make sure exactly what he did say. He was, I think, wrong. But he has a perfect right to be wrong. And he does it with great charm.
I believe that, provided the pools cornpanies fully utilise their considerable expertise in realising the sales potential of their long established product, the size of their market position should not be greatly affected by the introduction of a national lottery. The Government have included a number of proposals in the Bill which will allow the pools considerable additional advantages. In particular, we introduced a facility for the pools companies to roll over their prize money in equal measure to the national lottery.
I, for one, have learnt a great deal, as a result of the Bill, of areas of which I am bound to confess I did not have much previous experience or even, in some cases, knowledge. Some of your Lordships who might be in an uncharitable mode could say that that was pretty obvious. Football pools, long odds, short odds, scratchcards, rollovers—these are all in a world of their own, and very interesting it has been.
It is a world of gambling, chance, skill or lottery —whichever takes your fancy—in which many people, according to their wishes, like to indulge themselves. It takes up a large part of the relaxation time in people's lives. It is not wrong that it should do so. And it is right that it should be conducted properly. That is what the Bill tries to do.
In all this my noble friend Lord Astor has borne the burden and heat of the day. He has been responsible for dealing with the vast majority of the Bill while my appearances, rather like those of a Sputnik from outer space, have been made periodically. M y noble friend has discharged his responsibilities with skill, understanding and courtesy. I am grateful to him for taking the nasty parts and for leaving me the more understandable ones.

911
The setting up of a national lottery is an exciting venture. Nothing in this life is for free. Of course there will be losers—stacks of them—but that is part of the fun of participating. If you are not prepared to lose your money, keep your money in your pocket. But many people will become winners and many organisations will benefit.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the consideration which you have given to the Bill and for the courteous and understanding way in which that consideration has been given to it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Midday
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this has been an interesting Bill both in content and in the nature of its political passage through both Houses. It is the first serious Bill that I have handled from the Opposition Benches and it has been an education for me as for the Minister. I am interested in sport. The House may not know that I quite like horses. But I am not a gambling person: so I also learnt a lot about that.
We on these Benches supported the Bill in its broad principle although we had numerous reservations on details. One of the most striking features—and it gave us some difficulty—was the uncertainty and the cloudiness about the precise nature of the national lottery animal. The House still does not know exactly what it will look like; how it will operate; who will operate it; who will regulate it. Although much of that is inevitable—it is in the nature of the process that we must have the Bill before we have the details—it has presented some difficulty. To some extent we have been dancing and voting in the dark on this Bill. I say at the beginning that I support very much the views which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has frequently expressed in regretting the absence of detailed regulations.
However, having said that, in addition to the normal courtesies which I wish to express and which are always expressed on these occasions, I would like, with unusual warmth, to give particular thanks to the Minister for the exceptional degree of friendliness, flexibility and co-operation that we have experienced in our dealings throughout the passage of this Bill. It has been to an exceptional degree. Throughout Ministers have been very open with us as regards their wishes and intentions and very willing to listen to our suggestions and to try to find a compromise. In fact, because of that we on this side—I am sure that it is also true of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat and Cross-Benches, as we have heard this morning and at great length throughout earlier stages of the Bill—all feel sure that we have secured a number of valuable concessions in the same way as we also secured them at earlier stages in another place. It is a better Bill as a consequence. I mention in particular the concessions in relation to various aspects of charitable lotteries and the provision of monitoring of the impact on charities and racing revenues. These are particularly welcome.
What was also quite striking was that these improvements were secured by reasonable discussion
912
and negotiation. There has been very little marching of the infantry blindly into the machine-guns of the Lobbies on this Bill. In fact, there may be some lessons for all of us on all sides of the House in that it is one constructive way—although it is not always appropriate—to conduct the business of this House. But it requires flexibility on all sides and we have had that. One fortunate result is that the Bill is out of this House this summer and I am sure that that is a relief to all involved.
Having been positive, and genuinely so, I conclude with one or two continuing reservations about the Bill and in particular what I feel about the role of the Treasury. The Treasury take is nothing short of being outrageously greedy. It will take 12 per cent. direct tax which is twice the average of our European partners who have lotteries. The Treasury will also of course take corporation tax on the operating profits which I estimate to be equivalent to at least another 1 per cent. take. It will also, I assume—perhaps the Minister can tell us via the Customs and Excise —have a VAT take.
I am not clear about the VAT situation, but I am sure that somewhere there will be revenue from that. If so, this lottery will be thrice taxed if it is only on the lottery tickets, the papers and so forth. The Treasury becomes the biggest beneficiary taking, I expect, more than the arts, sport, charities and heritage together. So, sadly, it becomes a case that really the main function of the Bill is to help fund the terrible deficit on domestic public finances which exists in this country due to the appalling recent mismanagement. That is very sad. Indeed, it is intolerable. We have been unable to discuss properly that Treasury tax due to the conventions of this House that that subject comes under the Finance Bill. That is a major continuing reservation. When the lottery is operating, I hope that it will still be possible to look at that again.
I would like to restate and stress, in case it is lost sight of, that the original and prime purpose of our national lottery was and is to raise money for good causes. My fear is that that great purpose will be lost sight of partly because of the Treasury's take, although that is often silent, but also because of another factor. It will be lost sight of in the consortia bidding to run this lottery. We see the consortia publicly salivating and boasting of their huge potential profits which they expect to make out of running the lottery. That distasteful process has already begun within the confines of this Palace.
I ask the Minister to give the House the strongest assurances that, first, the prime purpose is to provide funds for good causes. Secondly, that the profits of the operator, when selected, will be scrutinised and restrained. I would like to be confident that excess profiteering will be grounds for a rapid change of operator. Thirdly, that the Treasury take will be reconsidered for downward revision once the consequences of the appalling state which the Treasury is in is corrected. There is no doubt that on a change of government, which may be imminent—I have chosen those words carefully—this tax will be looked at again. I believe that everyone involved with charities throughout the land, but particularly those in

913
the Christchurch district of Southampton, should note that there is the prospect, on a change of government, that that heavy tax will be reconsidered.
Finally, I hope that the operator will be British and will include our post offices in the operation. I trust that the regulator will be very careful and wary of, for instance—and I am a great friend of America—American operators who may arrive with George Raft as chairman and various distinguished Italian families in the background. So I hope that this lottery will be run on a proper, British basis.
With those observations and reservations I am happy to see the Bill passed. I look forward to the deserving worlds of the arts, sport, charity and heritage receiving significant benefits because it will be a waste of all our time if they do not.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for me this Bill has been on-the-job training. It has been a pleasure learning how to take a Bill through the House in his distinguished company. I would like to get the courtesies over at the beginning. They are more than formal. It has been a very great pleasure working not just with the noble Earl who has made one of his characteristically stylish guest appearances this morning on the Bill, but also with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I hope that it is not invidious to say how much we have appreciated his very great courtesy and consideration when dealing with some of the anxieties which have been advanced throughout the House.
Within the limits of a Government who are clearly in a hurry on this Bill, if on nothing else, Ministers have tried to be as flexible as possible. I am grateful for that. Although we shall not be voting against the passage of the Bill, I cannot pretend that we on these Benches are entirely happy with it. I have not been happy at any point. Excepting that many people like a flutter and that putting down a small price for a large daydream is a relatively harmless form of human frailty, I am not sure that it is right for the Government themselves to move beyond tolerating gambling and regulating it, to becoming the sophisticated promoter of gambling, particularly if the justification for doing so is the distribution of the ultimate surplus, whatever that may be, to worthy causes and projects which in many cases and in most civilised countries would be funded largely, if not entirely, by taxation.
In that context, I should like to pay particular tribute to those noble Lords who have contributed so much to our debates, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. When so many of your Lordships, to put it candidly, have had an interest in the outcome of the Bill (whether as potential operators of the lottery or potential beneficiaries of the money raised), the noble Lord has sounded a very proper social and moral note about whether this is a proper activity for the Government. We are all greatly in his debt for that.
Accepting that the Government are determined to press ahead, we have seen it from these Benches as our principal obligation to try to improve the Bill. However, I am still concerned that the ostensible beneficiaries of the national lottery—the arts,
914
heritage, sports and charities, which as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said are, after all, the justification for the whole exercise—are still being treated as a contingent variable and as the residual at the end of the line once the Treasury, the prize winners and the operators have all taken their cut.
We need to take the greatest possible care over the selection of the operator and in writing the tightest possible contract for the operator. It would be outrageous if the billions of pounds which are potentially passing through the new lottery machine (including, for those of your Lordships with a commercial instinct, a mouth-watering cash flow, on which the interest alone would make this an extremely profitable business to be engaged in) led to excessive profits being made on the operation of the lottery.
In that context, I should like to raise the same issue as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised in his concluding remarks. I refer to the test of who is a "fit and proper" operator for the licence. I have not been one of those at any stage of the Bill who has tried to maintain that there should be anything but an open competition for the lottery. I do not want to exclude people because they come from abroad. I do not want to exclude certain sorts of businesses from bidding for the lottery. I am glad that the Tote will be able to bid.
I do not have any problem with the widest selection of people being able to bid for the operation. However, I think that the Government have a particularly heavy responsibility to ensure that a test of "fit and proper" is applied so that this massive new business does not end up in the wrong hands. That is a problem in the United States and we do not want it to become a British problem. The Government could draw on their experience of the Gaming Act of 1968 and apply that test of "fit and proper". I should very much like to be reassured by the noble Earl that when allocating licences for gambling the test of fitness will be subject to the Government's experience of the Gaming Act.
The Bill still leaves too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Government. Although I have reservations about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, I think that the Government would have been well advised to find ways of making this whole operation more semi-detached from the Government. It is because I think that there is still too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State and with the Government in general that I have paid particular attention to the question of the licence regulation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has been good enough to write to me about that and I should like to read to your Lordships a very short passage from his letter, which I was encouraged to receive. The noble Viscount wrote:
"I can confirm that the Department has undertaken some preliminary work on the kind of things which might be contained in the licence… From this work, for example, has emerged the need for the Director General to establish codes of conduct in order to reflect your Lordships' concerns on matters such as advertising—particularly in relation to young people, and the concerns of charities. We have therefore amended the Bill at Report in your Lordships' House to allow for codes of conduct as a result of these concerns, which were raised at committee stage".

915
My one observation on that is that I wish that the Government would put it more strongly than "allow". I would expect that the sense of your Lordships' House and good sense itself would mean that the Government would wish and would say now that they are going to have codes of conduct, rather than simply permissibly saying that they should be "allowed". There was general concern about advertising aimed at young people, and the Government should take that seriously.
Perhaps I may make one parenthetic note on behalf not only of myself but also of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who is not able to be here today. The Government showed some signs of flexibility in giving guidance to the Arts Council on the issue of films. I hope that they do that. There have been two pieces of relevant news in this morning's newspapers. First, Elstree Studios are to close. That was reported on the same day as the fact that the top 10 films on exhibition in this country are all American. That is a terrible missed opportunity and has great artistic significance for Britain as a whole.
The concession to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred in relation to reporting is welcome, much appreciated and will improve the Bill and ultimately the operation of the Act. However, I am not clear yet whether the Government will have an independent agency to make the annual analysis and to report back.
I turn now to the question of the regional balance of the funds. I know that it is the Government's intention to ensure that the money does not end up disproportionately in London, but I hope, on the question of the sub-committees, that when it comes to the distribution of the funds, a real structural effort will be made—not just a good will effort—to ensure that the money is distributed as widely as possible around the country, remembering always that the people who put up the money, the gamblers, will not necessarily be drawn from the great metropolitan centres but will come from all over the country.
In conclusion, this is one of those Bills which presents a broad brush picture. It leaves an awful lot to our good will in assuming that the fine print will be well worked out. I wish that we had the regulations in front of us. I understand the reasons given, but I do not altogether accept them. I simply say to the Government that at the moment they are taking a substantial leap in the dark. I hope that, like anybody taking a leap in the dark, they will take every possible care that the implementation of the lottery meets the aspirations which have been expressed in this debate in your Lordships' House.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, as co-chairman of the Lottery Promotions Company, it is a matter of enormous satisfaction to me that the Bill looks poised to pass through your Lordships' House. I have enjoyed the debates very much, and I, too, would like to pay my tribute to the immense courtesy and
916
consideration that I have always received from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
I confess to being rather disappointed that your Lordships did not agree with me that the whole thing should be run by a charitable trust. However, if I understand the timetabling of the Bill correctly, it looks unlikely that your Lordships' amendment will be considered in another place until October. If that is the case, there is the whole of the summer for the fine tuning of the Bill to be considered. The reasons why I thought that the lottery should be operated by a charitable trust were simple and still remain slight worries. In determining the projects on which the money is spent by the good causes, and in particular by the Arts Council, the Sports Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund, I hope that those bodies are empowered to seek advice from any other bodies that they choose. I hope that they will be urged to do so because the moneys involved will be very large. It is dangerous that the decision-making process on such large sums should rest in each area within one door only.
Like many of your Lordships, I also hope that the question of profit will be carefully considered. Indeed, so many of your Lordships have wanted 35 per cent. of the eventual money from the lottery to be devoted to the good causes. Since it is well known that almost every successful lottery puts 50 per cent. into the prizes and that 15 per cent. is the average figure for the running costs of a lottery, not much is left over for profit if 35 per cent. is to be achieved for the good causes. If that can be achieved within the figure of 15 per cent., it should be. The noble Earl said that the profits involved would sharpen up the operator concerned. I hope that the sharpening process does not depend upon too large a profit. It would be a shame for the nation if it were to become a private profitable rather than a public profitable lottery.
The one thing that will affect that famous 35 per cent. figure more than anything else is taxation. I well realise that we in this House are not supposed to debate in detail matters of taxation, which are not within our province, but I hope that in the course of the Summer Recess the noble Earl will urge his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider carefully whether the benefit to the nation in general, and the benefit to the Treasury, might not he better served by a tax-free lottery rather than by a tax of 12 per cent. upon it.
Everyone's concern in the Bill has always been to see that the good causes receive as much as they possible can. It was the foundation for proposing a lottery Bill in the first place. I am delighted that the Bill looks set to pass through your Lordships' House. I hope that it will come out as profitable for all those good causes as all your Lordships hope.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I support what has been said in appreciation of the Ministers who have conducted this operation, not just with great skill but with remarkable co-operation such as we rarely see in the House these days. That is to be commended. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, in paying tribute to the lottery promotion company, of which he is a joint

917
chairman. I, with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, was once a director. should like again to mention the work of Mr. Dennis Ward, the director of that organisation, which has been sterling.
I was pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, touched a philosophical note about gambling and losing. I warmed especially to the noble Earl's remarks about the joy of losing. I would not go as far as Kipling. If I can recall his words accurately, he said:
"If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss".
That is a commendable philosophy for those of us who gamble occasionally. But the point about this lottery is that the winners will not be able, unless they are remarkably stupid, to risk all their winnings at one turn of pitch and toss because they will just be buying another ticket. Charities have conducted lotteries for many years, and many of us have been associated with them. I am glad that we have been able to make special arrangements for charities. Many people expect to lose when they take part in a lottery for a specific good cause. That is what we are dealing with here, although on a much larger scale.
One or two questions remain. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Donoughue, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and others have said about the 12 per cent. which the Treasury proposes to take. We have at the moment a Chancellor of the Exchequer who might well be imaginative enough to have a further look at that point during the summer. It is essential, if the lottery is to succeed, that people see that there is enough money distributed in prizes and enough to go to the good causes which we are all seeking to help. Nothing should undermine that.
I take particular pleasure in recalling again the undertaking given by the Government, and especially the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that there will be an annual report to Parliament about these matters so that we can keep them under constant review. One matter that we have not discussed which is worth mentioning in passing is that the distributors—this is something with which I agree—will be the regional councils for sports arid arts when they are concerned. I hope that the Government will resist the temptation to impose in their way guidelines which are too rigid and leave them as much freedom of action as possible to decide how to spend the money.
The temptation will be for Ministers for Sport and the Arts or the Secretary of State for National Heritage to try to lay down too closely guidelines as to how the money will be distributed. If that happens, it will turn the lottery into just another arm of government policy, and that would undermine its purpose. I am delighted to have been associated with the lottery from the outset. Those of us who started the campaign for it thank the Government for taking it on board. We wish it every success in the future.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that he had found me trying, indeed very trying. I am sorry if I caused him distress, because I suspect that that may also have extended to my other
918
noble friend Lord Astor. I do not regret trying. 1 was not trying to improve the Bill for myself. I was trying for all charitable organisations throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that my noble friend appreciates that. He suggested that I might be greedy in what I wanted. If it had been for me, I should have taken that as just censure, but as I was attempting to improve the position of charitable organisations which, as my noble friend will realise; help millions of people in this country and throughout the world, I believe that i was justified in doing so.
I welcome the Government's undertaking to monitor the effects of the national lottery on charities and voluntary organisations. I still feel that there is a big chance that a number of them could lose a slice of their expected income. I hope that they will be the first to benefit from any distribution resulting from the Bill. I welcome also the increase in the size of small lotteries and the amount of the prizes that can be awarded by them in their attempt to raise income.
On Report I raised queries on Clause 24. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Astor for sending me a letter on 20th July which has clarified the position and eliminated my concerns on that point. He also wrote to me on 22nd July, for which I thank him, about the National Lottery Charities Board. He has given me the clarification which I was seeking on Report, something which I believe should have been made clear at an earlier stage. Perhaps I may quote from his letter because it should be on the record. My noble friend wrote:
"The committees for each of the four nations that make up the United Kingdom, and that the Board can appoint as many other committees, with whatever delegated powers it wishes".
He goes on to say:
"These statutory national committees may take on non-executive advisers to help them directly with their work and may wish to establish further committees in each country to handle applications. For these further committees., the Secretary of State has the power to appoint additional committee members, who will be members of the committee only and not of the full Board. Under powers of delegation from the main Board these further committees would, if the Board wished, be able to make grant decisions".
In the next paragraph he states:
"The Board will have overall control. But it will be able to decide the extent to which committees will have delegated powers, and we expect most of the detailed work on funding decisions to be taken by committees rather than the Board itself".
My noble friend's letter has been extremely helpful to me and I hope to the House as a whole. He has offered to place a copy in your Lordships' Library, which will be useful. I am grateful. I hope that the proceeds from the national lottery will be spent wisely. I and others will be watching to see how it is carried out.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I would call this day the "parliamentary gambling day". In another place the Prime Minister is gambling everything in his political life under the eyes and the bourses of the world in a desperate struggle to survive. He is engaged in a gambling exercise. We at this end of the building are also engaged in a gambling exercise —or should I call it a gambling enterprise?

919
I regard this Bill as the sleasiest of the Session. It was introduced with the urbanity, dignity and skill of the best-liked Earl in the House. And what miserable tasks he is given. A large part of the work of Parliament is to deal with the vices and weaknesses of mankind. I say with great affection that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, preserves his sense of humour remarkably well.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, has temporarily left the Chamber. I had intended to try to coax him to give us the best high moral line that he had on the subject. After all, he is the most skilled proselytizer in the business and I thought that he might be able to help us. At the present time it is difficult to find one, even in the best company.
The Bill is not the result of a public clamour nor the proliferation of lotteries authorised by the present law to the point of being out of control. Not a single person has written to me and said, "Give us our lottery, and give it us quick". I have had letters of an opposing kind, but probably I am regarded as a depository for people with moral grievances. The Bill is the product of the mind of the Treasury, which is looking round for means of raising money. It is not promoted primarily for the upkeep and promotion of good causes. Good causes are the alibi. It is intended to make money in order to save public expenditure, and the first hand in the till will be that of the Government. They must have their grab at the result of public stupidity and will want to take their cut for Treasury purposes. It is the means whereby the Government can say, "We have a proven way of getting money out of people who when they are taxed say that they cannot afford it". Indeed, the Government keep telling us what they cannot afford. We know what rubbish that is because from time immemorial governments have been telling us in a highly selective manner what the country cannot afford. When we see the billions of pounds that are likely to result from the Bill, spent by people who are overtaxed and cannot afford more, one realises that that is not true.
I shall not weary your Lordships with more of my reflections on that aspect of the Bill. I dislike it. Its effective introduction depends upon the judgment of the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State responsible. I doubt whether between now and Christmas or the New Year he will find the right time to introduce the national lottery. It may come oddly to the nation to find Parliament and the Government busying itself with the national lottery when so many other anxious cares must be dealt with during the next 12 months. We do not know what awaits us in that time; indeed, a good deal may depend on the outcome of the events in another place today. I hope that I am not being unduly censorious but I believe that what we need in this country at the present time is not more laxity in approaches to standards of public life and of social activities but a more stringent approach to our sense of duty and an acknowledgment that we are in a tough period in history. I shall let that matter pass and not trouble your Lordships further with it.
920
However, there is one matter that I must mention and as far as I am concerned it is new. The Government will be creating a new agency which will handle a great deal of money subscribed by the public. It is therefore imperative that the highest standards of efficiency, and in particular of financial management and accountancy, should be promoted in the national lottery. Such financial transactions make a vulnerable target for shysters, fraudsters, counterfeiters, burglars and any other member of the criminal world. Investigations into other national agencies are afoot and many people close to that problem are most anxious about the less-than-satisfactory standard of probity in the agencies as compared with central government. Two different standards appear to exist. As regards the Government, that stems from the austerity of William Ewart Gladstone who appointed the first Comptroller and Auditor General. It is a matter of passing interest that my noble friend Lord Wilson was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons which celebrated the 100th anniversary of the creation of the Comptroller and Auditor General. But the standards of accountancy, though not always the standards of wisdom, in the Exchequer and Audit departments, overseen by the parliamentary mechanism, shone above all else.
Another aid to central government's standing in this field is the Duchy of Lancaster. As a matter of fact, the Duchy of Lancaster first gave evidence of the efficiency as regards the custody of the king's ransom. This country probably has the highest standards of public administration in the world.
Some very grave losses have been incurred in the health service. They are already public knowledge. Two regional health services and a local authority are involved. Reports on those cases are now being prepared. I am told by a person who knows that one of them is horrifying. It may be that a warning must be given to the Government and to the people that they had better take care of public money which is in the hands of agencies and decentralisation may be an additional risk in that connection.
I ask your Lordships to be vigilant during the autumn so that those matters receive a great deal more attention. I notice that the Bill refers throughout to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is extremely reassuring. The National Audit Commission is an enlargement of the district auditor and other audits of that kind. I see that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington approves of my reference to that. I remember so well his many contributions to the Bill which created the national audit service. That service is busy and has a task far beyond its existing resources. That matter needs attention.
This Bill will create another agency vulnerable to some undesirable elements. After all, it is not an agency which will recruit from among retired clergymen, out of work curates or those who may be expected to come with a high standard of personal honesty. The agency will recruit from those who know

921
the jargon already and who may be engaged in it. Again, that requires some watching because familiarity can sometimes breed contempt.
Those are my final words on the National Lottery etc. Bill. I have criticised the silly title. I hope that the lottery goes well. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Howell and I wish it well. Why should I wish it ill? However, I hope that we shall not play too much on the good causes element because in my view that is only a veneer which is spread over the whole enterprise, when we are after money from people who might feel rather squeamish about going in for that kind of thing because they have been taught in the past that gambling is wrong and that wanting something for nothing is worse. I was certainly taught that at a Methodist Sunday School. That would have been my contact with my noble friend Lord Tonypandy. I shall leave it at that and I am grateful to your Lordships for listening to what I have to say.
12.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not think that there would be too much enthusiasm for this Bill on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He gave us a number of pieces of advice to which he believes that we should adhere. He said that this was a product of the mind of the Treasury and is not for good causes but merely to raise money. I thought that that was rather harsh. He knows really that the whole purpose of the lottery is to raise money. It gives people the opportunity to have a bit of a flutter but it will help good causes, and that is its purpose. With all his knowledge of Whitehall and his experience of the processes of Whitehall the noble Lord will know that Shylock could not go without his pound of flesh. That is why the Treasury has an interest.
I was fascinated by the quotation from the noble Lord. Lord Howell, from If about losing money. When I was about 12 my school moved during the war from the South of England to Scotland and there was a delay to the start of the term, which did not commence until November. My father was anxious that I should not lose the desire to work and he made me learn two things: one was If and the other was the 13th chapter of the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians all about faith, hope and charity. I do not believe that in this respect the charity part is relevant but it was something that I never forgot.
I remember If but not quite in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, remembers it. My memory does not enable me to recall the last verses but I remember the first verse:
"If you can keep your head when all about you, Are losing theirs and blaming it on you".
I thought that that was an extremely apposite quotation which might he used at both ends of the Corridor today.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, lest he should have misunderstood me, that I never said that he was very trying. I said that he was trying. I then said that he had succeeded. If he is offered a carrot, he should not turn it into a pumpkin.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is worried about VAT. As for all businesses in the United
922
Kingdom, VAT will be payable on all services provided to the lottery but not on the commission paid to the retailers. There will be no VAT on the tickets.
He was anxious also that the tax should be revised downwards. The Chancellor is always able to review levels of duties and taxes on anything. He indicated on 16th March that the level of duty on the lottery will be kept under review, particularly in its initial years. The figure for the first year of the lottery's operation will be 12 per cent., as set out in the Finance Bill.
The noble Lord was worried also about excess profiteering being grounds for the revocation of a licence. The level of operating costs to be proposed by the potential operators will be one matter which will be taken into account in the bidding process. It is quite likely that the level of operating costs will be reduced as the turnover increases. In other words, for the first, for example, £1 million the bidders will say that they will take a certain level of profits and for subsequent additional turnover the amount will be reduced. That would be part of the competitive process. Therefore, do not believe that there will be excessive profiteering.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, was concerned about the codes of conduct. He told me that he would not be able to be here for my winding-up speech. We clearly intend that there should be codes of conduct. The letter from my noble friend Lord Astor intended to convey that the precise detail of the contents of the codes of conduct and which areas they might cover would be for the director general when he is in post. Of course, your Lordships' views will have been taken into account.
The noble Lord was also concerned about the test that an operator should be a fit and proper person and that the test should be effective. Under Clauses 5 and 6 it is quite clear that the director general would have the necessary powers to investigate not only those who bid to run the national lottery but also all those—for example, shareholders and other controlling interests—for whose benefit the business is carried on. There should be no risk that criminal or other undesirable people can benefit from the national lottery. We shall insist that the lottery is run with the utmost integrity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, the lottery is a leap in the dark. That was also the inference that I drew from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Of course, anything new is of necessity a leap in the dark. We must try to ensure that the rules are such as to make the lottery least susceptible to things going wrong and that it is constructed in a way that should provide the greatest benefit all round. I believe that we have done so.
Your Lordships have been kind enough to help in the process during all the stages of the Bill as it has gone through Parliament. Of course, the Bill will not be acceptable to everyone; indeed, we all have different views on the matter. However, the fact is that many people, charities and good causes will benefit. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, reminded us, many people will also be losers—but that is part of the form of gambling.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was worried about the prospect of a national lottery and

923
said that no one really wanted it. I can only remind him of what Bernard Shaw said when he dedicated the site of the first National Theatre before the war. In his speech he said:
"Do the British people want a National Theatre?"
Well, of course, they did not; neither did they want Westminster Abbey, but they now have it and are well content with it. Perhaps that will be what happens with the national lottery. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
12.50 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
At last year's Edinburgh Summit, it was agreed that, following the reunification of Germany, the number of seats in the European Parliament which are allocated to the larger member states of the European Community should be increased. The United Kingdom, Italy and France each received an extra six seats. Germany has received an extra 18 seats. Some of the other smaller member states also received extra seats. The Government have decided that the six extra seats, which have been allocated to the United Kingdom, should, in line with our electoral traditions, be single member constituencies, as is provided for in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978.
Your Lordships have debated the merits of other electoral systems on a number of previous occasions and the Government see no reason to change from the present system, which is well understood by the electorate and which provides close constituency representation. Next year's European parliamentary elections will, therefore, be contested in the traditional manner.
Some of your Lordships may question why the Government are taking no account in the Bill, which is before your Lordships, of the requirement under Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome for a uniform electoral procedure to be set up, following unanimous approval in the Council of proposals brought forward from the European Parliament.
The position is that a report, which was prepared by the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, of which Mr. de Gucht was the rapporteur, is before the Council. It has not yet been discussed, and we are not aware of any plans to discuss it.
The Government will look at any proposals in a constructive manner, but we do not at present consider that we should change from our present system, which is well known to us and which also happens to be a system towards which some of our European partners are also, in fact, moving.
Clause 1 of the Bill will amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, so that the total number of United Kingdom seats in the European Parliament will be 87 instead of 81. The number in England will be 71 instead of 66; the number in Wales
924
will be five instead of four; the number in Scotland will remain at eight; and, the number in Northern Ireland will remain at three.
The system of election, which is provided for in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, will continue to apply. In Great Britain, there will be single-member seats, and elections will be by simple majority.
In Northern Ireland the three seats will be filled from one constituency by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. That was the system which Parliament chose in 1978 so as best to represent the different communities which exist in Northern Ireland. We do not intend to change that, nor do we intend to change the way in which we choose MEPs in Great Britain.
Five of the six extra seats are given to England and one to Wales. That produces the fairest arithmetical split. The average electorate per seat in Scotland is 11 per cent. lower than it is in England, but the average in Wales is 1 per cent. higher than in England. The effect of the Bill will be that the Welsh average electorate present in Wales will become 13 per cent. lower—instead of 1 per cent. higher—than that of England and that of Scotland will remain at 4 per cent. lower. That gives the fairest split for average electorates, but it still provides slightly higher levels of representation in the smaller parts of the United Kingdom.
There was much debate in another place about the idea of giving an extra seat to Scotland on the basis that some Scottish constituencies, particularly the Highlands and Islands, cover very large areas. That is perfectly true. The Highlands and Islands constituency has about the same area as Belgium. But an increase in the number of Scottish seats would not change that situation. An extra seat would probably have gone to the more densely populated central areas of Scotland, and not to the Highlands and Islands. The distribution of seats in the Bill is on arithmetical grounds and, on that basis, no extra seat for Scotland can be justified.
Clause 2 and the Schedule to the Bill deal with the mechanisms which are to be used for redrawing the constituency boundaries.
The nature of the task of allocating the extra seats in the European Parliament has meant that special European parliamentary constituencies committees for England and Wales will need to be established. Under the Bill, they can be appointed before the Bill is passed. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has appointed them.
Those committees will be strictly impartial and apolitical. They will be required to draw up only the initial constituency boundaries for the 1994 European parliamentary election. They will only carry out that task, and then they will be disbanded. When the parliamentary boundary commissions—as opposed to those temporary committees—have completed their general review of Westminster constituency boundaries, which is likely to heat the end of the next year, the boundary commission will be required to carry out a consequential review of the European constituencies in the usual way.

925
There are three boundary commissioners in England; three in Scotland; three in Wales; and, three in Northern Ireland. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that five of the six existing boundary commissioners for England and Wales have agreed to sit on the committees. The additional member of the English committee will be Mr. Michael Lewer, who has been an assistant commissioner since 1965. The chairman of the committee for England will be Miss Sheila Cameron QC, together with Mr. David Macklin and Mr. Michael Lewer QC as members. The chairman of the committee for Wales will be Mr. Justice Pill, together with Mr. Peter Davey and Mr. Murray McLaggan as members. The membership of the committees is, as your Lordships will see, very similar to that of the boundary commissions.
The intention of the Bill is that the committees will function in a way which is as close as possible to that of the boundary commissions.
The Bill, unlike the existing legislation which governs the redrawing of constituencies, does not require the committees to hold local public inquiries simply because there is not sufficient time. It will not, in fact, be the first time that that has happened. In 1978–79, when there was also a very tight timetable, the Government of the day decided that it was necessary to forgo public inquiries in order that the constituency boundaries could be in place in good time for the election which was held in June 1979. Despite that, the new boundaries were not in place until March. This time we hope to improve on that date and to complete the review by Christmas.
The European parliamentary elections are to be held in June of next year, and it will be necessary to have the new constituency boundaries in place in good time so that the political parties and the electoral administrators can prepare themselves.
If public inquiries were to be required, they would take too long and, as a result, the new boundaries would probably not be decided upon in time for the elections. We could not afford to take that risk as we need to ensure that the seats are in place in time for next year's elections. With the exception of local inquiries, the criteria which the committees will follow will be as close as possible to those of the existing boundary commissions. There will be as much time as possible for open consultation. In order to allow for this, the committees will publish their proposals—I hope in early August—and they will allow several weeks for interested parties to make their representations to them. These will be considered and, where necessary, changes will be made, before the committees issue their final reports.
The criteria which the committees will follow will be the same as those which are laid down in the 1978 European Parliamentary Elections Act. This means that the constituencies will be made up of at least two Westminster constituencies, and no Westminster constituency will be able to be partly in one European constituency and partly in another. Each constituency should be as close as possible to the electoral quota for that part of Great Britain, although special geographical considerations may he taken into account. Once the committees' final reports have been
926
submitted to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, he will be required to lay the reports before Parliament together with the draft of Orders in Council giving effect to their recommendations.
Both your Lordships' House and another place will be given the opportunity of debating the contents of the reports, and the approval of both Houses will be required before the constituencies can be put in place. The Bill, I think, provides a fair distribution of seats and machinery for redrawing the boundaries for these additional seats. The mechanism is as similar as possible to that which has been used in the past. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Earl Ferrers.)
1.2 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his, as always, clear exposition of this Bill. It will come as no secret to him or to the rest of the House that we have grave reservations about it, and indeed my colleagues in another place voted against the Third Reading. We considered the possibility of putting down a reasoned amendment at this stage of the Bill, not surprisingly on the subject of the system of elections to be used, but we decided that it would be better to wait until there were more people around in the overspill period, and to give noble Lords on the Labour Benches time to discuss the outcomes of the Plant Report in relation to the European Elections. However, the House may rest assured that we shall return in the overspill period with appropriate amendments as regards the method of voting.
That brings us to an interesting point; namely, that we are told by the noble Earl that the first draft of the new constituencies that we have been talking about will be out in August before your Lordships' House has had a chance to deal with either Committee, Report or Third Reading of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will deal with that matter in more detail later, but it seems something of an offence for a Minister of the Crown to say, "We are really not worried what the Upper House of Parliament says about this. We have started the process; we have appointed the people and they will produce their draft results before the Upper House reaches the Committee stage of the Bill". We will see what happens at the Committee stage. The Government may be disappointed.
The reasons that my colleagues in another place voted against the Third Reading of the Bill were threefold. First, there was no additional seat for Scotland. When one considers that we have a significant number of Members of another place from Scotland, I suppose it is not to be wondered at that they gave that matter some priority. Secondly, they voted against the Third Reading because of the failure to carry out the obligations under the Treaty of Rome as regards a uniform voting system and, thirdly, because the Government have got themselves into a time warp which means they cannot—they say—use the normal boundary commission system to do a proper job.

927
As we have heard, the Government's proposals give England five seats, Wales one and Scotland nil. Therefore England will have 71 seats, Scotland eight and Wales five. One would have thought that England could have managed with 70 seats and that Scotland could have nine, but obviously the Government do not see it that way. We understand that the size of the electorate is as important in determining the size of Euro-seats, as of Westminster seats. But of course there is a considerable disparity, even as regards Westminster seats in Scotland. It was always a proud boast of mine that on the occasions that I fought elections I obtained more votes than my noble friend Lord Grimond, sitting as he did for Orkney and Shetland with a small electorate. It is possible to vary the size of the electorate to deal with geography.
Questions have been raised in connection with the Highlands and Islands seat. That is a huge seat. One would have thought that some method could have been found—if one were to go down this road of single Member seats—of reducing that size. It runs from a latitude north of the south of Greenland to a latitude south of Berwick-upon-Tweed. If we are talking about Members of the European Parliament having constituents with whom they are in touch, I would have thought that it would take quite a long time for a Member for that area to find his constituents, let alone talk to them. However, we well understand why there is this reluctance to give an extra seat to Scotland. It is, of course, because there are not many Tory votes in Scotland.
Noble Lords: There will be even fewer!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, yes, there will be even fewer after this week, and perhaps even fewer still after next Thursday. As regards the uniform electoral procedure, again my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will say more about the systems of voting in Europe. That point always confuses the noble Earl. He has confused us again today by saying that the Europeans are moving towards our system. Presumably he is referring to the recent changes in Italy. Of course they are not moving towards our system: they are moving towards the German system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are moving towards the Plant Committee recommendations to the Labour Party—a regional list.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope that we can argue about that at a later stage because it is not quite as simple as that. But what is true is that they are certainly not moving to a first past the post, single Member constituency.
The de Gucht proposals have been passed overwhelmingly by the European Parliament. There is an obligation on the Council to make progress on that. I have no doubt that the British Government will seek to block that. But of course there is a possibility that the European Parliament will take the Council to the European Court at some stage. The European Liberal Democrat Reformist Group has already taken the Parliament to court. I believe that the score is 15 all at the moment. At least the court on this occasion
928
was prepared to listen to the argument. At a later stage it may well be prepared to listen to the argument from the European Parliament when it is put. I accept that the matter rests with the Council, but it is quite clear that at the moment this country is in breach of the Treaty of Rome. That not only reduces the ability of minority parties in this country to obtain proper representation—something which the Conservative Party may in its turn live to regret as it shortly becomes a minority party—but also distorts the parliament itself in Europe. There is no doubt that at the previous election the majority in the European Parliament was changed by the imbalance of the system in this country.
A further reason that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place voted against a Third Reading was because of the boundary commission farce. The Government complain about urgency but that is entirely of their own making. If the Government had wished to go down this road, they could have started the procedure certainly as early as last December. As they probably had knowledge of the fact that it was going to take place, they could have started the procedure even earlier than that. We shall have a procedure which is totally unsatisfactory. There will be no opportunity for proper consultation or for proper appeals. It is my understanding that the boundary commission proposals are frequently changed on appeal. As much as 70 per cent. of the seats are affected by appeals.
It is an astonishing piece of legislation. It is undemocratic; it is loaded. I would not accuse the noble Earl of being involved in gerrymandering; but if I were in another place, I might accuse some of his right honourable and honourable friends of gerrymandering. However, we do not use that sort of word in this place.
We deeply regret that once again the Government have not taken the opportunity of fulfilling their obligations under the Treaty of Rome. Undoubtedly in this case the six seats should have been used on an additional Member basis—that is the way in which the Germans use them and in which eventually the Italians may use them—in order that there should be proper and fair representation not of the parties but of the electorate of this country. Why should they be deprived by this constant, dogmatic refusal to have a fair electoral system? The Bill is yet another step on that long trail on which the Government are fighting a rearguard action to stop fairness coming into our electoral system.
1.11 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to support the Government, somewhat unusually. Speaking personally, they have my assurance that I shall do my utmost to ensure its satisfactory establishment in the statute book.
European parliamentary elections now have an importance which was not always accorded them. During the proceedings of the Maastricht Bill—your Lordships will expect that I shall naturally refer to it —much was made of the argument that the satisfactory establishment of the European Parliament

929
and the possible extension of its powers was one way in which the democratic deficit could be tackled. The democratic deficit exists because of the tremendous powers possessed by the European Commission which is not accountable to anyone, and the somewhat diffuse and ambiguous powers that were retained by the Council of Ministers. It was correctly apprehended that one way of curbing those non-accountable powers and many non-accountable acts lay in the hands of the European Parliament. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we should consider how the European Parliament is composed.
I first went to the European Parliament as a delegate from your Lordships' House. That meant that there was a dual mandate. On the one hand, those of us who were chosen from your Lordships to attend the European Parliament had certain responsibilities at Westminster; and at the same time we were given new obligations, admittedly not onerous, but of a certain shade of supervisory character in the European Parliament. I had not been there for more than two years before I became aware that there was a move, in particular by the Dutch, to adopt direct elections to the European Parliament, in terms similar to those that were put forward in Article 137 of the Maastricht Treaty. The article states:
"The European Parliament, which shall consist of representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community, shall exercise the advisory and supervisory powers which are conferred upon it by this Treaty".
Article 138.3 states:
"The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States".
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the last sentence was the identical phraseology that was brought forward in the year 1977. In those days, I was an innocent. I assumed that when direct elections were talked about, it meant direct elections in the way that we have them in the United Kingdom: that the country would be divided up into constituencies; that the constituencies themselves would hold elections within their own boundaries on a given date; that the various party forces would be deployed; that the usual arguments would take place; and that each constituency would elect a member representing it. In the case of the Westminster Parliament, the constituency would he between 60,000 and 70,000. There is a very close identity between the Member and the comparatively small constituency. The disadvantage about having direct elections to the European Parliament and at the same time to have a parliament of a reasonable size was that each Member of the European Parliament would be responsible for between 600,000 and 700,000 people.
That size is somewhat diffuse. I would not argue its effects in this Chamber. But at least there was some identity with the proposed Member of Parliament and a defined constituency. I was only to learn later that the proposal was agreed to by the then Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Callaghan, on the basis of a deal with the Liberal Party to have direct elections, among other things, as a reward for maintaining its co-operation in a loose coalition which ensured the Labour Government's survival at that time.
930
I make no complaint about that; but in the event direct elections were held. However, to my astonishment, the only two countries that changed their position with regard to the European Parliament were our own country and the Republic of Eire which maintains to this day an identity of the Member of Parliament to a specific constituency. The remainder of Europe did not change. It carried on exactly as before. It has a series of regional lists which are not identified to any specific constituency. Those lists are highly convenient for the party machine in that a number of people are put on the list without local intervention or local responsibility. They then become European Members of Parliament and sit in plenary in Strasbourg and Luxembourg.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my intervention, his reference to the Lib-Lab Alliance—it was never called a pact; it was firmly called an alliance—is slightly in error. If the noble, Lord, Lord Callaghan, were present, he would agree that there was never a promise on European Parliamentary elections save only that there would be a free vote. That was a significant difference. It is one which perhaps my right honourable and honourable friends might have regretted later. However, there was a free vote, and unfortunately a number of his colleagues did not honour the understanding that we had.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am obliged to the noble Lord for the correction. My information comes from properly accredited biographies. They must be accurate in material respects. I accept unhesitatingly the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in the matter.
However, in the event, out of the 12 countries in the Community, the United Kingdom has direct elections and Eire has direct elections with a limited form of proportional representation. There are seven other countries that operate on national lists, two on regional lists and one—Germany—on a mixed national and regional list.
There may be other views, but my hope is that the day will come when the remainder of the Community, 10 countries in all, will adopt a form of direct elections which identifies the Members of Parliament with specific parts of the country and specific responsibilities. However, that is for the future.
In the meantime, the redistribution of seats, as proposed at the Edinburgh conference and faithfully reflected in the Bill before us, puzzles me. On the new basis, the United Kingdom. with a population of 56.9 million, will have 87 seats. That is less than some other member states combined. The United Kingdom will have less representation under the new arrangements than a combination of Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal who, together, will have 143 seats. I am afraid that our position is that we have a bigger population but the number of seats we are given is less than that of others. Already, even though we have a greater population than the countries I mentioned, we shall have far less representation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? Is he worried about the under-representation of Germany?
Lord Bruce of Donington: No, my Lords, I am not. Under the new arrangements, Germany will—in my view, quite properly—have many more seats. She will have 99, whereas on the basis of her population she should have 131. I have no objection to that at all. On the basis of population, the United Kingdom would have 94 instead of 87. Italy would have 95 instead of 87, and France 94 instead of 87. Spain, uniquely, would remain exactly the same. Luxembourg, with a population the size of Bristol, instead of having six seats, would have only one; Belgium, instead of having 25, would have 17; Denmark, instead of having 16, would have eight; Ireland, instead of having 15, would have six; and Greece, instead of having 25, would have 16. The Netherlands would have 24 instead of 31 and Portugal 17 instead of 25.
On the basis of population, the position remains distorted. In my view, sooner or later it will have to be corrected. It is all very well having 12 stars on the European flag, when one star represents Luxembourg with a population of 400,000, the size of Bristol. Yet that is equivalent to Germany which ought, on any population basis, to have 131 seats. I do not believe that that is entirely defensible. Ultimately the situation will have to change.
What will have to change even more is the whole system of elections. Whatever the results which may ultimately come from a whole series of independent commissions—including one of my own—I do not believe in lists. I do not believe in parties drawing up lists of people for mass approval as a substitute for direct representation such as we have had until now. One of the defects of the projected system in Europe will be that 600,000 to 700,000 people will be too many for one person to represent. In a parliament which remains advisory and which has no particular powers, that may be all right. However, in a parliament which may even remotely make up the democratic deficit, I am afraid that it will not be acceptable.
I do not propose to move any amendments to the Bill at the Committee stage. I reiterate my support for the Government and for the Second Reading of the Bill.
1.26 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on any matters concerning Europe. He can claim to have been wholly consistent in his position on Europe for many years. He took the same view during the debate on what became the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as he did today. So there was nothing unduly surprising in what he said.
I have only two points to make about the noble Lord's speech. First, I have a piece of bad news for him. if and when the Conservative Party finds itself sitting where the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, now sits, he will find that the enthusiasm for the cause of proportional representation starts to grow at a remarkable rate. He has only to look at some of the
932
debates between 1974 and 1979 to realise that the Conservative Party was finding it increasingly difficult to get hold of anyone who was prepared to stand up from the Front Bench and speak out against proportional representation. That is the first point.
Secondly, I come to the size of constituencies. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was worried about the size of European constituencies or the average number of electors per member. I wonder whether there is anything at all in that argument. Is it suggested that the quality of representation in the United States House of Representatives is inferior to that of the House of Commons? In my personal experience, the answer is no. Yet the number of constituents per member of the House of Representatives is infinitely larger than in this country. So I do not think that there is much in that point. Quite apart from anything else, if the European Community increases the number of member states, I find it hard to believe that we shall not have to look again at the number of seats in the European Parliament to prevent it becoming an unwieldy organisation.
Having said that by way of introduction, I should like to raise two issues in relation to the Bill first, the system by which the boundaries of European constituencies are to be determined; and, secondly, the system of election, to which my noble friend Lord Tordoff referred.
I find it surprising that the Government have come forward with the truly remarkable system of determining the boundaries of European constituencies. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, there are to be two special ad hoc European parliamentary constituency committees. They will determine the boundaries. As the noble Earl said, there is to be no question of a public inquiry; yet, in terms of the alteration of boundaries of Westminster constituencies, there is a requirement, in appropriate circumstances, for a public inquiry to take place. Of course, in many cases, as a result of those public inquiries, the boundary commission reviews its original decision and comes forward with a modification. Why is that not being done in the case of the European constituencies for next year's elections?
The answer of the Home Secretary is this:
"Due to time constraints, it will not be possible to hold public inquiries".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/93; col. 988.1
His second line of defence was—as it was with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—that when the first direct elections for the European Parliament took place in 1979, the legislation made no provision for public inquiries. That is entirely true, and for the reason given by the noble Earl.
Let me take that latter point first. Undertakings were then given—indeed, they were given by me, speaking as a Home Office Minister both on the Floor of this House and outside it—that this procedure would not be adopted in the case of any future election. That was a commitment entered into, and it was pressed very vigorously upon us outside this Chamber by the representatives of the noble Earl's party. Yet that is precisely what we are being asked to agree to today.

933
I return now to the first excuse; namely, to quote Mr. Howard, time constraints. This really is a frayed and tattered thing. Let me remind the noble Earl of what the Prime Minister said last December following the Edinburgh Council. He said:
"The provision of six extra MEPs will mean that fresh boundaries are set across England, Scotland and Wales, which will be a matter for the Boundary Commission, not for the Government".
That promise has of course been wholly dishonoured within a period of six months.
What we are being asked to agree to today are not decisions taken by the boundary commission but by these curious new parliamentary constituency committees, bodies which, as I have explained and as was explained at some length in the House of Commons, will not be able to organise public inquiries. I believe that to be wholly wrong; indeed, quite indefensible. I hope that the noble Earl will return to that point when he replies to the debate.
The noble Earl has another problem. He has to explain to us why the difficulty of "time constraints" arose in the first instance. As my noble friend Lord Tordoff reminded us, the British Government had the presidency of the Council of Ministers in the six months before the Edinburgh summit. They were therefore in a better position than any other nation state in the Community to know that as a result of German reunification the allocation of German seats in the European Parliament would be increased significantly and that there would be additional seats for France, Italy and the United Kingdom.
In those circumstances there should clearly have been work going on in the Home Office and among parliamentary draftsmen with a view to producing this Bill before the Christmas Recess last year. It was the result of a decision by Ministers that that Bill was not presented before the Christmas Recess.
It was presented for Second Reading only 23 days ago. The Government, preoccupied with their internal disputes over Maastricht, preferred to give absolute priority to such carefully considered measures as the Education Bill—I am not much of a statistician, but I believe that the number of amendments which had to be agreed was about 830 or thereabouts—and the railway privatisation Bill, which was also given absolute priority. I say to the noble Earl in the most amiable of ways that that particular measure is doing a tremendous amount of good to the Conservative candidate in the Christchurch by-election.
We are faced with a profoundly unsatisfactory situation, in which we are being invited to legislate and, without the Bill even having gone onto the Statute Book, we are told that these parliamentary committees are hard at work anticipating the decisions of both Houses of Parliament. My goodness, I wonder where all those people are who like to come here to tell us about the advantages of absolute parliamentary sovereignty. There is not much parliamentary sovereignty about this.
I turn now to the system of election, which was foreshadowed by my noble friend Lord Tordoff. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has indicated—as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—
934
Article 138.3 of the Treaty of Rome, to which this country subscribed when we entered into the Community, requires the European Parliament,
"to draw up proposals for election by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform electoral procedure in all Member States".
That could not be fairer—and we know what the current situation is. We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of the situation in the other member states: Belgium has proportional representation in two regional constituencies; Denmark has proportional representation in a single constituency; Germany; Ireland; Greece., Spain; France; Italy; Luxembourg; the Netherlands; and Portugal. All of those countries have a form of proportional representation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: And what about the list systems?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall come to that in a moment. There is something in what the noble Lord says. If I were given a choice about a system so far as the European Parliament is concerned, I should like to move to something like the German system. I have made that clear in a number of previous debates.
It is interesting to note that at the same time as we are being asked to hang on to first-past-the-post for England, Wales and Scotland, the situation is to continue to be totally different when it comes to Northern Ireland. Strangely enough that point was not touched on in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. There STV is of course an absolutely wonderful idea. We have to have STV in Northern Ireland. Why do we have to have it in that country? We have to have it because in the situation in Northern Ireland the Government want a fair and balanced electoral system. But of course they do not want a fair and balanced electoral system in the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has to be treated wholly differently.
To its credit, this House has not accepted that situation. Indeed, in 1989–90 this House passed the European Parliament electoral reform Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, which provided for elections by the single transferable vote. But that was blocked when it reached the House of Commons by the Government Whips.
The argument against proportional representation for Westminster is that it creates weak and unstable Governments. Weak and unstable governments, my Lords! We are not doing terribly well down the corridor at the moment on the basis of this electoral system which the noble Earl champions today.
Even were the current political situation to he entirely different, that does not begin to answer the argument so far as proportional representation in Europe is concerned. There is no government in Strasbourg. Therefore, that line of defence so far as Ministers are concerned is a pretty unpersuasive one. However, there is at Strasbourg a settled determination to ensure that the Parliament is elected on the basis of common principles. The report adopted at Strasbourg by 207 votes to 80 said that Members of the Parliament should be elected,

935
"in accordance with the uniform electoral procedure based on the principles of proportional representation".
The resolution added that if a member state—I come back to the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred—used a single member constituency system, not more than two-thirds of the seats should be distributed in that manner, with the balance being distributed to take account of the proportions of the total vote cast.
What could be fairer than that proposition so far as concerns the European Parliament itself? I should like to imagine that the Government would be persuaded by that argument. But of course they will not be persuaded. As I indicated earlier, they may be rather more attracted by the idea as and when they find themselves sitting on the Opposition Benches in both Houses of Parliament. But they will cling on to this tired, old, discredited system for as long as they can do so.
Speaking for myself and my colleagues, I do not have the slightest doubt that proportional representation is coming. I also have little doubt that when it arrives it will be welcomed by a clear majority of the British people. Until then, the Government will be ignoring the unambiguous requirements of the Treaty of Rome and the Government's professed desire to be at the heart of Europe will be mere empty rhetoric.
1.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there can be no doubt that with or without Maastricht the European Parliament and the system of election to the European Parliament are of great importance to this country. It is shameful to this country that we have such a low participation in the European parliamentary elections. I shall spend a certain amount of time considering why that might be so and whether electoral systems have anything to do with it. Therefore it is particularly disgraceful that the Government should present this Bill at this time.
I remind the House that on 14th December last, the Prime Minister came back from Edinburgh and promised that there would be a European Parliamentary Elections Bill, and that specifically it would involve the boundary commissions. The implication of that, although it was not spelt out, was that there would be public inquiries, which is the normal way in which the boundary commissions proceed.
What happened? My honourable friend Tony Blair wrote to the Home Secretary on that same day, 14th December, asking for details of the legislation that would be introduced and when it would be brought forward. Despite considerable prompting there was not even a reply from the Home Secretary until 27th January. So that was the start of the delay. In practice, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, reminded us, the Bill was not given its First Reading in another place until 13th June and was not given its Second Reading until 30th June.
Why was that? It is hardly because it is a complicated Bill. There are only three clauses and one schedule. It is hardly because there is any new thinking
936
in the Bill. The Bill simply provides for the work of the ad hoc commissions. No, of course not; it is for the same reason as we have been kept up night after night in the past few weeks. It is because the Conservative Party is in disarray. The Conservative Party has, both domestically in the form of the Education Bill and the Railways Bill and in other legislation, no legislative programme on which it can secure the command of its own party. Internationally it is grotesquely failing to maintain the unity of its party on Maastricht. So any talk about delay being for any reason other than the progressive demoralisation of the Conservative Government is nonsense.
What is the effect of the delay? That is much more serious. The effect of the delay will be that the ad hoc commissions will not observe normal boundary commission procedures. I have no reason not to welcome the announcement by the Minister today that five of the six commissioners will be boundary commissioners. I am sure that he is right in calling attention to the integrity of the sixth commissioner. So I have no problems at all about the membership.
My problem is the way in which this matter is being approached. First, the commissioners will start work without parliamentary approval. That cannot be a precedent that we should accept. Secondly, they will proceed without public inquiries. In fact I thought that Sir Teddy Taylor in another place had it right: if we in Parliament were to adopt the procedures which those commissioners are to adopt, we would cancel the debate, all go home, submit written representations to the Home Secretary or the Minister on the Front Bench opposite and await his conclusions. That is the way that they will operate. It is not the way that we operate and not the way that we should be operating in representing the people.
It is not as though these are matters which are so complicated. The building blocks for the constituencies are parliamentary constituencies—Westminster constituencies. Mapping by computer graphics has well advanced since 1978, the last time that such problems arose. Frankly, the whole thing could be done in 48 hours and all the options counted, costed and evaluated. Then there could be proper public inquiries as to a realistic set of options. So adequate attention is not being paid to what could be done with an up-to-date and efficient boundary commission procedure.
Let us look at the results. We are told that it is because of statistical equality that Scotland is to be denied an extra seat, whereas England is to receive five extra seats. Literally that is the case. It is literally true that under the Government's proposals England will still be slightly under-represented in comparison with Scotland and slightly more under-represented in comparison with Wales.
But if we were to give Scotland another seat, in view of the huge geographical areas which Scottish MEPs cover—not just the Highlands and Islands; it is true in large parts of Scotland—then the total electorate of the average English constituency would only go down by 7,000, which one might think is an insignificant amount, whereas the total electorate of the average Scottish constituency would go down by 55,000, very

937
much more closely representing the need of Scottish constituencies to be workable from a representative point of view. We are certainly not satisfied that the allocation of seats between England, Wales and Scotland, as proposed in the Bill, is correct. We shall seek amendments to that effect.
Finally, I turn to the issue of the electoral system. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I have bad news for him. If he thinks that harmonisation of electoral systems in the European Community will lead to the kind of proportional representation that he wants, he has another think corning. By the way, I notice that the Liberals always talk about proportional representation as if there were only one form of proportional representation. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, constantly referred to proportional representation as if it were an electoral system.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers., at least agrees with what troubles the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. If he reads my speech, he will find that what he has said happens to be untrue.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may also intervene. It is not true to say that we always confuse matters. I can think of a number of occasions on which I have held small teach-ins in your Lordships' House on the various systems. If the late lamented Lord Underhill could be with us and hear what is being said I think that he would agree with us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not doubt that the Liberal Democrat party is very well versed in different forms of proportional representation and that its members make a number of lengthy speeches on the subject. What I said was that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his speech referred to proportional representation as if it were an electoral system which could be adopted for the European Parliament. What he failed to do—if I may be allowed to finish my sentence—was to refer to the fact that proportional representation is a family of electoral systems.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may also say that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out that of the systems he preferred the German one. That indicates that there are other systems.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Then again, I have bad news for the Liberal Democrat Party. The report says that there should be either national or regional lists. Ten members of the European Community have regional or national lists—regional in the case of Italy, Germany and Belgium; national in the case of seven other member states. Only Ireland, which has a single transferable vote (which for most purposes is the preferred system of the Liberal Democratic Party) and the United Kingdom, which has single member constituencies, are out of line.
It is fair to say that the Liberals have been—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Consistent!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: —I was not referring to consistency. I do not think the Liberals are being particularly consistent in changing from a single transferable vote to a regional list. They are taking advantage of the fact that we in the Labour Party will have the presentation of the Plant Report to our party conference before the Committee stage of the Bill. The Plant Report is well known. It recommends a regional list for European elections. I support that and hope that after the Labour Party conference it will be possible for us to be of one mind in the matter. It will be a change not only for the Labour Party but also for the Liberal Democratic Party.
I was slightly surprised, but not entirely surprised, by the speech of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. He expressed support for the Bill but proceeded to speak almost entirely about other matters. After Tuesday and yesterday I thought That we would not see again the blue document with the 12 stars on its front. That is not the case, arid I perhaps should have been warned by Second Reading in another place that those who are opposed to Maastricht are prepared to take any steps to express their disapproval, even if it means expressing approval for undemocratic procedures in the European Parliament.
My noble friend does not believe that the European Parliament should have its powers increased. That is legitimate. He does not think it is possible for the European Parliament to work with such large numbers of electors. I do not agree. If that were the case, it would not be possible for the. United States Senate and Congress, or for the Congress of the Russian Federation, to operate at all—though he may say that the latter does not operate very effectively, anyway. But clearly the European Parliament can be made to operate if its powers and composition are correct. That is what we should be looking to achieve.
It is important that justice should be seen to be done. Neither in the conclusions which the Government reached in regard to electoral systems, nor in the way that they propose to proceed in reaching conclusions about boundaries, is justice being seen to be done. The Bill will need significant amendment in Committee and we shall see that it gets it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as he was kind enough to mention my name, albeit somewhat critically, I should like to ask this question. Will he be kind enough to explain to the House how the list system is compatible with the democratic process whereby electors are represented by people who are known to them and are within a reasonably accessible distance from them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that question gives rise to a number of different answers, and I shall try to avoid putting all of them forward. The first is that in other European countries where they have regional or national lists, they have substantially higher participation in European elections than we do in Britain with single member constituencies.

939
Secondly, our single member constituencies are already too large for the kind of personal contact which my noble friend and I would wish to see. I agree with him in that regard. I happen to be well represented by Pauline Green who is the leader of the Labour MEPs. But I do not believe that even she would say that many of her constituents have access to or know her. The third and final point is that the regional list system achieves the adequate representation of minority as well as of major parties.
1.55 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whenever there is a debate or Bill about electoral systems, one can guarantee that it will stimulate good argument, and it has done so this morning. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, cannot help it; he has to make a political speech. He started by saying that the delay was a progressive demoralisation of the Conservative Party. I have never heard such rubbish in my life! He knows that perfectly well. If ever a party was in a mess, it is the party opposite.
I shall not involve myself in the party politics which he stimulated. The Labour Party has always supported the system of first past the post. Now it has a committee which says that it should go to a different system. It does not know whether it is coming or going. Even the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, admitted that. He said he must wait for the Labour Party Conference to make up its mind first—so much for leadership.
We introduce a Bill to allow more seats for better democratic representation in Parliament and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, acts as though the Government were doing something terrible. We are not doing anything of the kind. It was fun to see him bait the Liberal Democrats, and I agree with him on that. And because I happened to say, "Hear, hear" the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was stimulated to rise to his feet. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, managed to stir to their feet every single member on the Liberal Democrat Benches bar one, so he did not do too badly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must respond. I never consider that I have been entirely successful unless I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to rise.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will have to imagine that he did; he was not in his place this morning. Had he been so, I am sure that he would have been stimulated just as I have been.
I was grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for supporting the Government in the first-past-the-post system. He is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is a man of individual characteristics, as we have seen over the past six weeks. He does not like the European Community all that much, but he is good and sensible enough to say that when we are represented there we should be represented by the first-past-the-post system. On this occasion, he is wholly correct and I am grateful to him.
940
As the noble Lord read out all the different alterations in the numbers of seats in the different European countries, he made me realise how difficult it is ever to achieve perfection. It is difficult to achieve perfection in any form of parliamentary system. The great advantage of the first-past-the-post system is that everyone knows that it is a tried and workable system and everyone understands it. The fellow who obtains the most votes wins and that is a good old adage that everyone understands.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the noble Earl one question. Is it his view that the people in Northern Ireland have a superior intelligence to those in England, Wales and Scotland, who are not able to understand the system now applied in Northern Ireland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asks what he thinks is a difficult question; in fact, he knows the answer perfectly well. The single transferable vote system was used in Northern Ireland because of the peculiar circumstances whereby there are different communities and different loyalties within those communities. It is right to ensure that some other system should try to make them better represented.
In general, nobody understands the list system and how votes are transferred one to the other. I cannot understand how some people get into some parliaments by a transferable vote system when they have been rejected by the electorate. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is quite right: proportional representation is not a system; it is a family of a variety of totally different systems.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who said that we should have the additional member system; that that is the best system to use. I ask: why? Does he not realise that in order to introduce that kind of system into this country for those six seats would require a whole new parliamentary system? We would have to introduce legislation to allow it, which would involve discussions as to whether it should be that system or another system. That legislation would have to pass through another place. When the noble Lords say that we have hurried this, they have no idea of the delay that would have been involved had we gone to a different system.
The noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Harris of Greenwich, were worried about the committees starting work before the Bill has finished its parliamentary passage. It is essential that the committees start their work as soon as possible in order to give us as much time as possible for public consultation over the new boundaries. It is also important that they should complete their task by the end of this year so as to give the political parties and the administrators time to prepare for the elections next June. Waiting until the Bill receives Royal Assent would leave them with little more than a month for their task which would clearly be nothing like enough time. That is why it is necessary to start as early as we have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a great song and dance about the committees starting before

941
Parliament had approved the Bill. How terrible it is, and so much for parliamentary democracy, said the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Parliamentary sovereignty.
Earl Ferrers: All right, so much for parliamentary sovereignty, said the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I should like to take his mind back a few years when he was a very distinguished member of the then government. They were putting through a certain Bill to devolve power. It was called the Scottish devolution Bill. I seem to remember his government having spent £2 million on building a Scottish Assembly before the Bill even got through Parliament. It never did get through Parliament. Therefore, that is a perfectly good example of how in that case that was an erroneous thing to have done. In this case it is a good thing to do because it is enabling the parliamentary systems to get into place in sufficient time so that people will be able to vote and to get their political organisations in train for the new seats and the new elections next year. It would have been quite impossible to have had six seats run under a totally different system from the one that we have at the moment. That is why we considered it appropriate to use the first-past-the-post system.
The noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Harris, seem to be like two birds singing together the same song. They asked why the Bill was not introduced earlier. The formal decision on the extra seats was not taken by the Council until February of this year. It was impossible, therefore, to have produced it before that. Your Lordships will be aware that there has been a certain amount of, shall we say, parliamentary congestion during that time. Therefore, it has not been possible to produce it earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also said that the Prime Minister had pledged that this would be done by the boundary commission and that that pledge has been dishonoured. It is not the boundary commission that is doing this; it is the constituency committees that are doing it—two of them. They will consist of virtually the same people as are on the Boundary Commission—all except one. Five will be the same and there will be an additional one. They will be totally apolitical and will deal with their responsibilities in the way in which they would be expected to deal with them.
There is not a public inquiry as such because, as I have explained, there is simply not time for a public inquiry. But there is time for public consultation, and public consultation will take place. They will then he able to produce their views afterwards. The boundary commission will then be able to take over responsibility for all the European parliamentary constituency boundaries after the elections have taken place next year and so will be able to address anything that needs to be addressed then. The reason why this has. been done now is in order to get into place a system whereby the extra six seats can be used properly for the European parliamentary elections next year.
942
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for one very statesmanlike remark. He considered the Bill and said that he has no intention of putting down any amendments. I commend him for that thought and for that approach. I would also commend such an enlightened view to the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Tordoff, because if they are concerned about getting the European parliamentary system through in a good democratic way, it ought to be done as quickly as possible in order to allow the correct mechanisms to be in place and the political parties to be able to get their organisations going so that the six seats can be used to the best of their ability next year. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, arid committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1993
2.5 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th June be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is my pleasant task to explain the regulations governing the administration of the assisted places scheme to your Lordships. The purpose of the regulations is to make minor amendments and update the regulations of an already well-established scheme. The draft regulations provide for amendments to be made to principal regulations which are the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989.
The assisted places scheme was established in 1981 for the purpose of widening the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families. It provides their parents with assistance towards the fees of some of the best independent schools in the country. The assistance is on a sliding scale based on parental income and the principal changes embodied in the amending regulations are concerned with the annual revision of those scales.
There are several other technical amendments which are necessary in order to keep the definition of "total parental income" for the purposes of the scheme in line with changes in tax legislation and to update the wording of the regulations to reflect current practice and circumstances. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th June be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his introduction. If he will forgive me, I shall briefly discuss some of the political implications of the regulations as this is really our annual opportunity to discuss the assisted places scheme and its ramifications.
The arguments against the assisted places scheme will be familiar to the House. We believe that it is wrong in principle to subsiclise the private sector. It is wrong in principle to cream off some of the most able

943
pupils from the state sector and send them to the private sector. We would go further and say that it is an admission of failure by the Government that they think it necessary to have this scheme in order to educate properly some of the most able children from our poorer families.
We go even further and say that there is a substantial body of evidence that the system does not provide the added value (to use the current jargon) to increase the educational achievements of the children. They are bright and they would do well in the maintained sector. They do well in the private sector but, as far as I understand it, neither HMI nor the Audit Commission could see any actual benefit in the examination results and the like to the children who take up the assisted places.
In practice the scheme has been characterised as one to benefit what one might term "distressed gentlefolk"—that is to say, the kind of parents who were themselves educated in the private sector, who I believe make up the majority of parents with children using the scheme. Such parents have fallen on hard times and they are no longer able to afford fees. So in practice it is turning into a self-perpetuating scheme for people who are used to the private sector; and it is the majority of children in the state sector who are suffering as a result.
I believe that current statistics show that only 7 per cent. of pupils on the assisted places scheme are the children of manual workers. As I said, about two-thirds of the pupils who take up the assisted places when they are 16 are already in the independent sector before doing so.
A more compelling reason to be against the scheme is a cruder one—that is to say, it encourages educational snobbery in that it undermines the maintained sector. In a nutshell, one can say that it is social opportunities for the few at the expense of the many.
As I said in my introduction, these arguments have been well rehearsed and they will be well understood by the Minister. What intrigues me is how the argument in favour of the assisted places scheme will change as the educational measures which this House and another place considered very fully are put into place. We are in the process of concluding consideration of the Education Bill. The Government will see a great change in the educational landscape of our country. The catchphrase which we have heard time and time again is introducing greater diversity and choice into the maintained sector.
Noble Lords may be aware that I am a local councillor in the London Borough of Wandsworth, which is a Conservative-controlled council. In the past three years in Wandsworth we have seen—very much against my wishesthe introduction of a diversity of schools. We have selective schools; specialised schools in the secondary sector; two CTC schools; and we shall he having a Church of England school moving into the borough. That is very much the kind of provision which the Education Bill seeks to put
944
forward across the country. Conservative councils argue that they are putting forward these policies in anticipation of national government policies.
It would intrigue me to be a fly on the wall and hear the Minister justifying to his Conservative colleagues in Wandsworth Borough Council why it is that the children in that borough council are getting less support from the Department for Education because that department chooses to subsidise the private sector. It has exactly the system which the noble Viscount says is to their benefit. Yet he still maintains the subsidy to the private sector.
In practice, I suspect that it would not be an intriguing conversation, because the Minister is well used to having his cake and eating it. I suggest that he has done very well on that. I wonder how the diversity of choice which is being introduced does not detract from the necessity for introducing choice to go to the independent sector.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister how it is that sending children to the private sector benefits the vast majority of children who are still educated in the maintained sector. For our part we are opposed both in principle and in practice to this scheme. We see it as socially and educationally divisive, expensive and fundamentally misguided.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise to comment only briefly on the assisted places scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has just pointed out, it is expensive. Essentially, it is a system for distressed gentlefolk. The middle classes take advantage of it to place their children in certain schools—and in schools in which the children do not necessarily receive a better education. There is no evidence to prove that a child who achieves under one system cannot achieve under another.
The Government are paying more money to educate children in this way. I have the figures with me. It costs about £3,100 to educate a child under the assisted places scheme, as opposed to £2,195 in the maintained sector. We are paying more to have children wearing slightly smarter blazers. It is ridiculous. It could be argued that if such children receive a state education, they will still achieve because if a child can pass exams, he or she can pass exams no matter what school is attended. But if bright children are now to receive a slightly better standard of education in the new, reformed education system in which there is increased diversity, why on earth are we paying extra for them?
It has already been pointed out that people from the lower social classes—if I can use such a term—are not benefiting from the scheme. Perhaps a better way of putting that might be to refer to people who are not traditionally recruited into the public school system. So why do we have this system? There does not seem to be much of a case for it. My party and I are not opposed to the principle of private education per se, but we are opposed to wasting money on it by subsidising children within it when that money is desperately needed in the state system.
If one can provide the same standard of education and the same benefits within the state system, why pay more into the private system, especially when we are

945
establishing a greater diversity of schools? Surely the pupils in a school which has grant-maintained status and which is funded directly by the Government are receiving funding which is identical to that given to a child who has an assisted place, so why are we still pumping in this money? This system is not only anachronistic; it does not make mathematical sense.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words. I greatly regret the fact that I do not agree with either my noble friend Lord Ponsonby or the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the assisted places scheme. I regret that I cannot agree with my party's policy on this as described by my noble friend, particularly because I was a very old friend and admirer of his father. I am so glad that my noble friend has taken over the mantle of speaking on educational matters from our Front Bench.
However, I find my party's attitude on this much too rigid. It does not take account of clever children from all classes. If I may say so, I also object to the phrase that the scheme is helping the "distressed middle classes". Does it matter if the middle class is distressed? Does it matter if a middle class family is poor and cannot send a child to a good school? Why should that be regarded as something to be disapproved of?
I know of one little girl whose father deserted the family and who then had to attend the village school where she was not fully stretched. There was no Latin or modern language teaching. The school went at the rate of the slowest child and the little girl was very bored. However, she was able to get an assisted place in a good private school where she is already the head of her form and is doing extremely well. We all know of such cases.
It seems to me that from a national point of view we have to cream off the talent of the country from whichever class they come—from the working class or the distressed middle class. We should be talking about any children whose parents cannot afford the best education for them. In France, for example, the talent of the country is creamed off. The clever children are sent through the system. The brilliant ones end up as products of the grandes écoles which produce high powered technocrats to an extent that is hardly known in this country and to the great benefit of that nation.
Although I have agreed with hardly anything that the present Government have done during the past decade, I support the regulations. I think that the Government are to be commended on introducing this scheme—and on their courage in doing so—because the realistic point of view is that it is much the best way of using the talent of the most brilliant children in the country, from whichever class they come.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I am grateful to him for the remarks he made about his regard for my father. Does he accept that the argument he put forward and the argument I put forward are not necessarily exclusive? I was arguing that it was an admission of failure by the
946
Government that they see it necessary to send the brightest children into the private sector. They are not providing suitable education for such children themselves. As I said, that is an admission of failure.
I was also arguing that, in practice, as the statistical evidence demonstrates, it is those in the know who take advantage of the scheme. I was questioning whether the places are going to the brightest children rather than just the bright children with parents in the know. I believe I quoted the statistic that only 7 per cent. of the children on the scheme have parents who are manual workers. We are interested in ensuring that the most able children are educated properly. I do not see that our points of view are exclusive.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed briefly to answer that point. First, of course, the children have to pass an examination to get into a private school. Secondly—here I am in agreement— the scheme stems from the fact that this country does not have a good public education system. We do not have a public education system of the standard one finds in Germany or France. Until we have that, I am afraid that we have to make use of schemes of this kind, otherwise there is a great waste of natural talent and brilliant minds.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Addington, have made it plain that they do not like the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is in favour of the scheme but says that we have it because this country does not have a good education system. I dispute that. The reason we need the scheme is because it provides choice. The scheme is a good one.
Perhaps I may answer some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Addington. They said that it was a scheme for distressed gentlefolk only. That is not true. The figures show that it is not true. I shall prove that now. The most recent statistics prove that the assisted places scheme is meeting its objective of helping children from disadvantaged families attend some of the best independent schools in the country. More than one third (38 per cent.) of all pupils receiving fee remission qualify for free places because of the level of their parents' income; that is, —9,056 or less in the year 1992–93. Sixty per cent. of all assisted place holders are from families with incomes of less that £13,000 per annum.
Independent surveys, such as those taken for ISIS by Mori, confirm that low income families are the ones being reached and served. well by the scheme. The Mori study shows that the majority of parents entitled, to assistance are from the lower middle class, skilled manual workers and similar groups. Eighty per cent of parents with children on assisted places are from social groups other than the middle class or upper middle class traditionally associated with private schooling. I believe that that proves the point.
Perhaps I may make one other point to the noble. Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Entrance to the schools is run on the basis of examinations, but selection need not be based exclusively upon academic merit. Some schools place particular emphasis upon helping children from

947
disadvantaged backgrounds. The Government believe firmly in the principle that parents in every part of the country should have access to the opportunities which a scheme such as this offers. The assisted places scheme is now in its twelfth year. The Government have done and will continue to support the scheme as part of their policy of widening educational choice and opportunity. Along with many parents throughout the country, we are immensely encouraged to see the successes—in music, the arts and sport as well as in academic subjects—which assisted pupils have
948
recorded. Over the years since this excellent scheme was introduced, over 60,000 children have benefited from education at some of the best independent schools in the country.
There are now more than 28,000 pupils in the scheme, well over one-third of whom are enjoying totally free education at the schools. This is a good scheme. I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past two o'clock.

  TRUNK ROADS: SAFETY
  TRUNK ROADS: SAFETY
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WEU: BULLETIN
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WEU: BULLETIN
  JAPAN (NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY)
  JAPAN (NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY)
  REPROCESSED PLUTONIUM: WEAPONS USE
  REPROCESSED PLUTONIUM: WEAPONS USE
  TOPAZ-2 NUCLEAR REACTOR
  TOPAZ-2 NUCLEAR REACTOR
  AIRSPACE: DEFINITION
  AIRSPACE: DEFINITION
  OUTER SPACE (MILITARY USES)
  OUTER SPACE (MILITARY USES)
  LOCUSTS
  LOCUSTS
  EC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: SPECIAL SUPPORT PROGRAMME
  EC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: SPECIAL SUPPORT PROGRAMME
  EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
  EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
  STATE PENSION AGE: EQUALITY
  STATE PENSION AGE: EQUALITY
  THE DISABLED (PRESCRIPTION CHARGES)
  THE DISABLED (PRESCRIPTION CHARGES)
  SOCIAL SECURITY BUDGET: HOUSING POLICY IMPACT
  SOCIAL SECURITY BUDGET: HOUSING POLICY IMPACT
  WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS (NEW ZEALAND FORCES)
  WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS (NEW ZEALAND FORCES)
  ASSISTED AREAS MAP OF GREAT BRITAIN
  ASSISTED AREAS MAP OF GREAT BRITAIN