Sitting of 7 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Benefit Payments
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will further review the arrangements for the payments of benefits.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): My Department has made significant progress in modernising and streamlining the delivery of benefits. For instance, clearance times for most major benefits have been reduced by nearly a third in the two years since the creation of the Benefits Agency. The Benefits Agency has published proposals on moving towards a one-stop service so that each claimant can obtain a comprehensive service covering all benefits from one point of contact.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State tell me how I am now to reply to the cries of concern and anguish being expressed by my constituents in West Cumbria and throughout the north-west region over the prospects of cuts and revisions in invalidity benefit, in housing benefit and in sickness benefit, which can only generate even greater insecurity in families who already
    2
    live on the breadline? Does the Secretary of State understand that people throughout the country are deeply concerned about what is happening in his Department'?
    Mr. Lilley: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman responds in two ways. First, he should speak to his Front-Bench spokesman who has been deliberately scaremongering. Secondly, he should refer his constituents to the exchange between myself and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 19 May, when I asked him to name a single scare that he had run in the whole of the past year which had come true. He failed to do so because he could not do so. He is a scaremongerer. We are in the business of improving the benefit system—that is what our long-term review is designed to achieve.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In my right hon. Friend's proper concern to ensure that benefits are provided both cost effectively and in a manner convenient to clients, will he, with colleagues in other Departments, look again constructively and sympathetically at the case for allowing local authority social services departments to make cash payments directly to severely disabled people to enable them, when they wish to do so, to make their own arrangements for personal and domestic assistance?
    Mr. Lilley: I recognise the important part that my hon. Friend has played in this question. He was concerned to ensure that there was a cash element and we did achieve a cash element in the disability living allowance. My hon. Friend would like it to go further. We were not able to make it possible for local authorities to give cash grants —indeed, they do not have the legal power to do so. However, I will keep the matter under continuous review. I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Bradley: The fears of claimants throughout the country, not only in the north-west, are about the level of benefits. They are especially concerned following the imposition of VAT on fuel. Since the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that pensioners will be more than compensated—I repeat, more than compensated—for the imposition of VAT on fuel, will the right hon. Gentleman

    3
    allay the fears of millions of pensioners, both those on benefit levels and those just above, and tell us today exactly what that compensation will be?
    Mr. Lilley: I have made it clear that I shall be announcing in the normal way—in the uprating statement in November—the arrangements that we propose to make to give extra help to the most vulnerable groups. That is over and above the automatic reflection of the increase in the cost of living that comes through in all benefits in the subsequent November. We will have extra help in the pockets of people in the most vulnerable groups at the time when the increased cost comes through.
    My right hon. Friend made it quite clear in that interview that he had referred to the additional money that we have already put in people's pockets from April this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "More than compensated."] Oh, he did. He referred to the change in arrangements that means that no one will have to pay a penny of council tax. For the most vulnerable groups, that is worth £2·90 a week.
    Mr. Ward: In reviewing the arrangements for paying benefits, will my right hon. Friend look again at the arrangements for so-called new age travellers? It seems that those people can still claim benefit. They are clearly not available for work; they are an absolute scourge on the south-west of England; and they are taking up a lot of police time in our constituencies.
    Mr. Lilley: I understand the great concern that is felt both by hon. Members and by people at large at any thought that people who are not entitled to benefit are ripping off the system—whether they are new age travellers or not. My hon. Friend will remember the changes that I made last year, which meant that people who are not actively seeking work and make no pretence of doing so will not be entitled to even the hardship rate of income support. I am pleased to say that during one large gathering—called a rave, I believe—at which several thousand of these gentlemen and ladies were present, only 100 people made any request for benefit.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he expects to pay in 1993–94 in compensation for late payments of benefits under the new compensation arrangements announced on 4 May.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The revised compensation scheme significantly improves the arrangements that have been in place since 1977. It is not possible to predict how much will be paid in 1993–94. However, we expect some 80,000 to 90,000 people to benefit from the special scheme for disability living allowance customers, at a cost of around £3 million.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for the statement that he made. Does he not accept, however, that much more important than compensation for late payment is prompt payment of benefit to which people are ordinarily entitled? In that context, will he tell us what is the review procedure for ensuring that the backlog is reduced, what rights people have to enable them to deal with maladministration resulting in benefit delays of the sort with which his statement of 4 May was intended to deal and, above all, how organisations such as the Drink Crisis Centre in my constituency—which is owed more than £50,000 by the Benefits Agency—can expect to be
    4
    able to secure prompt payment so that people suffering hardship today, rather than in the future, can be compensated at the time at which they are meant to be paid?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman has a look at what is being achieved by the Benefits Agency in the delivery of benefits, he will find that there have been substantial improvements. For example, income support, in respect of which we set a target of five days, is now being delivered in 3·5 days on average and social fund decisions, which were being made within seven days, are now made within 4·3 days. That improvement in performance is reflected across the board.
    There is a specific question about DLA later and I prefer to deal with that subject then.
    Mr. Sweeney: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what the Benefits Agency is doing to try to speed up the payment of disability living allowance?
    Mr. Scott: Yes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency announced some months ago the specific actions, which included an increase in the number of staff, the establishment of remote processing units and the working of overtime. Those measures have delivered: virtually the whole backlog of DLA claims has now been cleared and the benefit is being delivered ahead of the targets that we have set.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the objectives of the system should be to ensure that unnecessary fears are not placed in the minds of recipients of benefits? In that context, does he further accept that there is a great deal of fear among old-age pensioners—fear that has been generated not by my right hon. and hon. Friends but by the interpretation placed on the future intentions of Ministers by organisations representing post offices and by the popular press? In the light of the words of the Secretary of State a few weeks ago, will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm undertaking that no changes will be made in the present system under which old-age pensioners and others can receive their benefits through sub-post offices?
    Mr. Scott: I cannot do better than to reflect the remarks of my right hon. Friend not a few months ago but a few moments ago, which was that our aim is to secure an improvement in the present system of social security, including the delivery of benefits to those who are entitled to them. We regret as much as anyone the scaremongering that takes place among Opposition Members.

    Social Security (Aims and Objectives)
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the aims and objectives of the social security system.
    Mr. Lilley: Our aim is to ensure that people have the means to cope with the main risks and needs that they face during their lives from their own or their employers' provision, from contributory benefits or from the state safety net.
    Mr. Burns: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that the overriding priority of the social security system must be to provide help for the genuinely less well off? Will he confirm whether he has seen

    5
    suggestions that have been floating around for using the tax system to claw back universal benefits and for the possibility of ending the universal provision of 'child benefit? Given that those proposals are being put about by the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, does not he think that it is time that the Labour party stopped shedding crocodile tears and spreading scare stories and came clean about what benefits Labour would tax and what benefits it would cut?
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that the focus of our benefit system is increasingly on those in greatest need and about getting the Opposition to come clean about their proposals. The Labour party spokesman is present so perhaps he can comment on the proposal of his colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that we should merge the tax and benefits systems. That can only mean means testing every universal benefit. Is that not what it means? Is that Labour policy or can the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscaden (Mr. Dewar) explain it?
    Mr. Dewar: May I first observe the niceties and courtesies of the House by welcoming the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to the Government Front Bench? I doubt whether he will be able to fill in full technicolour the role played by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), but we will all watch with interest the development of someone whom the Yorkshire Post described as
    "Just William: the schoolboy sensation becomes a Government Minister."
    With regard to the question, is it the Secretary of State's view that reflecting and questioning the expressed views of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury amounts to scaremongering? If he is concerned about the fears that are undoubtedly arising from the present review, would it not be sensible for him to trim off now some of the more damaging examples? For example, will he rule out the taxation of invalidity benefit and any changes in eligibility designed to exclude people who are genuinely struggling with ill health? Will he make it clear now that the housing costs of the poor will not be unreasonably increased by mean-minded changes in housing benefit?
    Does not he recognise that the fears of those struggling to make ends meet on limited incomes are greatly increased by the failure of the Secretary of State and his like to slam the door on schemes that would spell disaster for some of the most vulnerable in our community? He is in government. He has the power to legislate. I think that he should clear up the situation.
    Mr. Lilley: I can respond very frankly to that. I can whole-heartedly and unequivocally assure the hon. Gentleman that none of the changes from our long-term review will make vulnerable people worse off or, in the hon. Gentleman's words, will be unreasonable. However, I do not expect that in any way to influence his campaign of scaremongering or that of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who, on 29 October, released some documents allegedly from my Department which, he said, showed that it was
    "the poorest, weakest and frailest who have been targeted to pay the price"—
    blah, blah, blah—
    "in the coming PES round."
    6
    He was wrong, but what has he done? He leaked exactly the same documents last week and made different assertions about what they indicate—never knowingly underleaked.
    Mr. Sykes: In view of the disaster that overwhelmed my constituency this weekend when one of our greatest hotels slipped into the sea, will my right hon. Friend ask the local manager of the benefits office to make an urgent visit to the area to help those most in need who have been affected by this most dreadful event?
    Mr. Lilley: I realise what impact that very sad event must have had in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will certainly convey his point to the local benefits office. It has a record of prompt response to such emergencies, and I am sure that it will deal with the matter appropriately.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although every political party has a duty to taxpayers to look carefully at the size and delivery of benefits, the review that he is undertaking is Treasury-led and is about cutting the size of the social security budget? Does he further accept that if the Government got the unemployment level down to the level that they inherited from Labour in 1979 and recouped merely half of the tax cuts going to the richest 1 per cent. of the population, there would be no crisis in public sector borrowing?
    Mr. Lilley: Although I normally agree with the hon. Gentleman on quite a lot of things, I would not agree that the review is Treasury-led or that the objective is to go back to a lower level of benefits—certainly not the much lower level of benefits that we had under the Labour Government, since when we have increased spending by two thirds.
    What we want is a better system which ensures that the most vulnerable people in society are protected and that all of us have the means to cope with the needs and variations of life. But to do that we must make sure that the benefits system is affordable. It cannot indefinitely outstrip the economic means that the country has to pay for it. If it did so, it would become unsustainable. That would be the greatest betrayal of those in need and damage the economy. We have a long-term review to ensure that we have a better, but sustainable, benefits system which is growing at least in line with what we can afford to finance.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in recent years the disincentive for people to work because they are on social security has been greatly reduced? Will he confirm also that many people are inhibited from going back to work because of the threat to their housing benefit? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take that matter very seriously in his review?
    Mr. Lilley: On the latter point, I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we will take into account such matters when we review those aspects of the benefits system in the long-term review. My hon. Friend is right; there are still some people who face disincentives to work, and we have to keep them under close review. Equally, we have removed the appalling situation in which people actually earned less when they returned to work than they did when they were on benefits. The over 100 per cent. withdrawal and tax combined rates have been eliminated.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has now resolved the backlog of disability living allowance claims.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current backlog of claims for disability allowance.
    Mr. Scott: The Benefits Agency has been meeting its primary clearance targets for new claims since February, and only a very small number of older disability living allowance claims remain to be processed. I am pleased to tell the House that the one millionth award of DLA and attendance allowance was made last month. That amply demonstrates the success of those benefits.
    Mr. Pike: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, following the introduction of DLA in April last year, the original situation was quite appalling. May I express my thanks to the hotline people for their assistance to Members of Parliament? However, it should never have been necessary to establish a hotline for hon. Members. Indeed, I am sure that the many cases in my constituency represented only a fraction of the cases in which there were delays. May we be assured that such a situation will never occur again? If there are delays for any reason, will the Minister consider people being notified of why there is unacceptable delay so that they will know exactly what the situation is?
    Mr. Scott: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers and the Benefits Agency have studied very carefully the lessons to be learnt from the introduction of DLA and the delays that occurred because of the unexpected surge at its introduction. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has been pleased with the service that he has had from the hotline, but it was only one of a number of steps that were taken to enhance the ability to respond by telephone to Members of Parliament, those who advise customers of the Benefits Agency and customers themselves. A very great deal has been done. I am delighted to say that we have made substantial improvements. It is worth pondering, particularly by Opposition Members, that in the first year of DLA we delivered that benefit to seven times as many people who received mobility allowance when the Labour Government introduced it.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not have the guts to tell us how many people have died since the backlog built up in the first instance? Will he tell the House that no fewer than 1,000 people have died waiting for benefit and that, as a result, that money has been saved? If some of the beneficiaries live to be old enough to get their pension, they will find that the Post Office has been closed by this lousy rotten Government and they cannot get it. I have two proposals for the Minister. One, use the computer that collects income tax to get those benefits paid and, secondly, he should pay some of the people who cannot get their benefits out of the Norman Lamont legal aid defence reserve fund.
    Mr. Scott: As ever, the hon. Gentleman goes way, way over the top. I do not know from where he invents his figures, but the fact is that the delivery of disability benefits is better than it has ever been in the history of their payment. There is no question of any savings accruing to
    8
    the Government from any delays that have occurred. We are determined not only to maintain but, where possible, to improve the level of service that we now give.
    Mrs. Roe: I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the DLA. That benefit has been introduced in one go, unlike the mobility allowance which it took the Labour party four years to phase in.
    Mr. Scott: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. The staff of the Benefits Agency deserve our congratulations and not our criticisms on their performance. This year, we set the Benefits Agency an enhanced target of delivering 65 per cent. of claims within 30 days. Today, it is delivering 75 per cent. of DLA claims within that period.
    Mr. Hawkins: I share my right hon. Friend's pleasure in the fact that the service to DLA claimants has improved dramatically, but he is aware of a number of cases involving my constituents which are still subject to considerable delays. I have sent him the detail on those cases and I am grateful to him for the attention that he has already given to them. Will he take further steps to ensure that the speed of service in dealing with outstanding claims is yet further improved in the light of the welcome improvements that have already been made?
    Mr. Scott: I will certainly do that. I am aware that a handful of claims—about 40—that were made in 1992 are still outstanding for a variety of reasons. In a number of cases, people may have failed to respond to inquiries by the Benefits Agency or sometimes a payment is already in payment because of a duplicate claim. It is worth the House grasping one figure in particular: of the 705,000 claims for DLA made last year, 99·99 per cent. are in award.
    Mr. Eastham: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that many hon. Members have processed cases to the Department that have been subject to long delays, sometimes due to the loss of papers and goodness knows what. I recently dealt with a case that had been considered for more than two years before the person finally got his entitlement. Is it not correct that there should be some kind of cut-off line, so that after three months or six months, when a claimant is finally paid his benefit, he should at least be paid interest on his entitlement? The same thing happens to people who pay income tax and who are charged interest if they delay in paying the Government.
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the matter, I think that he will find that the Department has improved its arrangements for compensation for the late payment of benefits. Special arrangements have been made for those who have been affected by delays in the delivery of DLA.

    Maxwell Pensions Unit
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the future of the Maxwell pensions unit; and at what point he will consider its work complete.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): The Maxwell pensions unit

    9
    still has an important role to play in assisting the pension scheme trustees, the liquidators and others in their work. We expect such assistance to continue for some time.
    Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the Minister is aware that he has inherited a very heavy responsibility towards Maxwell pensioners, which is also a source of concern to many hon. Members. He will be aware that many thousands of those pensioners have had 18 months of uncertainty about whether their pensions will be met in full. There has been some success in recovering funds. At what stage would the Minister be prepared to guarantee that Maxwell pensioners will receive the sum that they anticipated receiving before the death of Robert Maxwell?
    Mr. Hague: I am certainly aware of the depth and scale of the problem described by the hon. Gentleman, and I fully understand and sympathise with the anxieties expressed and uncertainties faced by Maxwell pensioners, many of whom are connected with the Headington plan in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is worth reflecting on the enormous progress made during the past year. The long-term gap between the Maxwell pension scheme's assets and liabilities seems likely to be less than £100 million. The scheme trustees have told the Select Committee that they are guardedly optimistic about meeting their pension liabilities in full. That represents a huge improvement on the scheme's position only months ago. There is no question of using taxpayers' money to compensate people for the consequences of fraud, but the Government, the Maxwell pensions unit and all involved have made tremendous progress during the past few months—I hope that they will continue to do so.
    Mr. Page: I unreservedly congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment which, I am sure, will be one of a number of glittering future appointments—
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister should make the hon. Gentleman his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
    Mr. Page: That would be too much. I pay tribute to the work of the Maxwell pensions unit. Together with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I perhaps have the most experience of the work of the unit, which has done a magnificent job in helping the Maxwell pensioners. That fact must not be forgotten by the House. Will my hon. Friend lift his eyes to the horizon to see whether his Department can work on legislation to protect future occupational pensions and protect the innocents of the future from the Maxwells of the future?
    Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous welcome, and I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for his earlier words of welcome. My hon. Friend was right to speak of the outstanding work of the Maxwell pensions unit, which, since it was established, has done a tremendous job in helping to mediate in its investigatory role. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, on the issue of future legislation, the Government can make no commitment until the pension law review committee has reported. We expect its report at the end of September. No doubt my hon. Friend will have representations to make then, to which we shall be delighted to listen.

    State Benefits
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to encourage contracting out of state benefits.
    Mr. Lilley: The Government have always favoured encouraging people to choose to make extra financial provision for themselves where appropriate. We are committed to introducing age-related rebates to make it equally attractive to people of all ages to join private pension schemes.
    Ms Eagle: Can the Secretary of State confirm whether, as part of the current review being conducted, his Department has held meetings with private insurance firms about the possibility of contracting out state benefits and arrangements for the payment of health service and other benefits of the welfare state? Does he realise that extending the privatisation principle to the welfare state will sound its death knell? Where in the last Tory election manifesto did it say that the Conservative party would butcher the welfare state?
    Mr. Lilley: The last point made by the hon. Lady is unworthy of someone of her intelligence. A modern welfare state is expensive and we may have to stop doing certain things in order to perform other tasks more successfully. It was not me who said that, but the Labour Co-ordinating Committee. The hon. Lady had better have words with her friends if she is worried about people ceasing to do things in the welfare state. It does not damage the welfare state to enable people to make additional provision for themselves, which was an intrinsic principle on which Beveridge based the system.
    We are meeting people in the insurance and pension world to discuss the proposals that I mentioned in my main answer, the arrangements that we shall have to introduce and the consultations that we shall have to hold to enable pension funds to conform to the European Court judgment on the equalisation of private pension arrangements and their co-ordination with a state scheme. We consult on and discuss all these things. There is no question of doing anything surreptitious that will butcher the welfare state.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid growth of the Department's budget since 1979 not only reflects our commitment to the most needy but is a cause for concern? Is not the contracting out of genuinely insured benefits to the private sector, where they are genuinely fully funded, an advantage to the people concerned and an advantage to the Department—because that enables resources to be better devoted to those who really need them?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in both respects. The fact that we have increased public expenditure on the welfare state by two thirds in real terms since 1979 is guarantee enough of our commitment to that system; but my hon. Friend is right to say that the great advantage of private provision—unlike state provision, which is based on pay-as-you-go arrangements with nothing set aside or saved or invested for the future—is that private schemes are fully funded and savings are made and invested in British industry to develop the assets which

    11
    will create the resources to pay for pensions and other benefits in future years. That is good for the economy, for the individual and for the welfare system.
    Mrs. Golding: This Government seem to spend many thousands of pounds on advice and instruction, much of it to do with the social security system, including contracting out. Will the Secretary of State reply to one of my constituents, who has written to ask me whether the Government will provide a helpful guide setting out the best way in which people can survive on their pensions? Perhaps he will consider starting with another of my constituents, who is 76 years old, who has no savings and who has £67·55 a week to live on. Could the right hon. Gentleman give him any guidance on how he can pay his gas, electricity and water charges, his council tax, fares and telephone charges, and save towards maintenance and repairs of his home? In addition, my constituent has to clothe himself, eat and pay for his one pleasure in the form of a television licence. Will the Secretary of State produce a helpful guide for this constituent?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady knows full well that no one in this country has to survive only on the basic pension. Because we have encouraged so many people to make additional provision, two thirds of all new pensioners have occupational pensions on top of the basic pension; a great many other people have other savings and investment income as well, and those who have none receive income support on top of the pension—and other income-related beneits to which they are entitled. We have been able to enhance those benefits because of our success in encouraging people to make private provision and in focusing additional help on those who need it—as we did last October, when we gave £2 more a week to individuals and £3 a week to couples on income-related benefits. In all, £1 billion more has been focused on these very groups in recent years.
    My advice is to continue voting Conservative and not to risk going back to Labour, which undermined all pensioners by inflation.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst possible world would be means testing for the basic state pension, which would discourage people from making private provision? Is not the future for people in work now to make their own private pension provision; and will the Government continue to encourage them to do just that?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely the mix towards which Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are moving—discouraging private provision and means testing the basic pension. Then they try to scare everyone with the idea that we would do something so foolish.

    Court of Appeal
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he now expects the Court of Appeal to resume hearing of the chief adjudication officer's appeal against the Commissioner's decision (CS/27/91); and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): It is for the Court of Appeal
    12
    to set a date for the hearing. Although we expect a date to be set imminently, I understand that that has not yet been done.
    Dr. Godman: This is one the Government are going to lose. Moreover, more than 450 women in my constituency are directly involved in Commissioner Skinner's enlightened decision. Lord Henley assured me about two months ago that any women suffering hardship would have their invalidity benefit restored. Why is it that when women in my constituency make such a claim to the local officers they are subjected almost to an interrogation, whereas women in other constituencies have had the money paid with arrears of benefit? Why is there a hard line and inconsistency in Greenock and Port Glasgow? Will the Minister investigate this legitimate complaint against those officers in my constituency?
    Mr. Burt: To my knowledge, this is the first time that such a claim has been made. The hon. Gentleman well knows that benefits are administered equally all over the country. He also well knows the reason for the current appeal. The case that Commissioner Skinner decided deals with a principle that the Government are not able to accept in relation to contributory benefits. We are waiting for the appeal to clarify the law, and when that has been done the law will be applied equally to all. As I have said, this is the first time that that specific complaint has been made. I will, of course, investigate any evidence that the hon. Gentleman puts to me about inconsistency of the type that he describes.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Wealth Creation
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to increase the science research councils' emphasis on wealth creation.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The central purpose of the White Paper that I published last month, "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology", was to bring our many excellent scientists and engineers into an even closer working relationship with the users of their research. This will enable them to contribute more effectively to wealth creation and to improvements in the quality of life in general.
    Mr. Stephen: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of reaction to the White Paper from the leaders of science and engineering?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am delighted to say that there has been a widespread welcome. I shall quote just two. The noble Lord Flowers, the Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, wrote:
    "I welcome your White Paper and congratulate you warmly on its content and tone."
    The four engineering institutions—chemical, civil, electrical and mechanical—said in a joint statement that they welcomed the White Paper on science and technology
    "because it identifies correctly the importance of engineering and technological innovation in the process of wealth creation."
    Mr. Stevenson: In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, the White Paper has its critics. Can the

    13
    Chancellor of the Duchy explain why another attitude seems to have been taken by the Department of Trade and Industry? For example. the ceramic, scientific and resèarch establishment in Stoke-on-Trent is waiting for the Department of Trade and Industry to provide £190,000 that is desperately needed. How does that square with the contents of the White Paper?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I will, of course, pursue with my colleague the specific matter that the hon. Gentleman raises and write to him. The Department of Trade and Industry has been reviewing its grant schemes and has refocused them, particularly on small and medium-sized firms, which is right. Perhaps that review has delayed matters in this case. I will find out for the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend's important White Paper is based on a careful balance between considerations of utility in science and considerations of scientific excellence. Will he assure us that, in implementing the White Paper's provisions, he will pay proper regard to considerations of scientific excellence, especially in relation to the research councils?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the major part that he played in writing the White Paper. His has been a clear voice for science in his constituency and in his work in my Department. I thank him for that. I can give the House the assurance that he seeks. Nothing in the White paper detracts from the importance of the best basic research. We need to do such research, but it must be done against the background of closer interaction between the science base and industry.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to publish a comprehensive charter for the disabled.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): None. All charters should address the needs of all those who use the service.
    Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the fact that organisations representing different categories of disabled people are extremely anxious to see comprehensive legislation on their behalf and that 297 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion relating to such legislation. Will he think again about providing at least a citizens charter that would cater for those who are disabled and would tell them what they can expect in a civilised society, even from this Government?
    Mr. Davis: The Government understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. However, the best approach to charters is a service-by-service approach. That is because the people working in that service have targets and performance measures that they can seek to achieve in the interests of the disabled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that 27 out of the 31 charters contain a direct reference to disabled people.
    Mr. Thurnham: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend as he makes his debut at the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that the Government's commitment to people with disabilities is shown by the trebling in real terms of expenditure on the disabled? Is not that a far better record than the Labour
    14
    party ever had when it was in power? Has any other Government programme shown such a big increase in spending?
    Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I shall try to be as helpful to the House in this role as I was in my last. He is quite right to say that the Government have trebled their real commitment to the disabled in the past 15 years. That is not all we have done. We have also made progress on legislation targeted at giving access to new non-domestic buildings, at employment—85,000 disabled people have been helped by specialist advisers—at transport and at many other sectors. That will continue for the future of the Government.
    Mr. Wigley: I also welcome the Minister, and look forward to his giving the House the same benefit he gave it in his last job.
    However, may I press the hon. Gentleman on the need for disabled people to know what is available to them? In an ideal world, that should be by comprehensive legislation such as anti-discrimination legislation. If such legislation is not forthcoming, there most certainly needs to be a citizens charter. If no such citizens charter is forthcoming, will the Minister add his voice to ensuring that we have an antidiscrimination Bill in the next Session of Parliament?
    Mr. Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I shall not call him my hon. Friend. The reality is that disabled people want practical assistance and practical access to the services that the Government provide, and we are trying to provide that practical service. For example, as part of the new experimental charterline telephone service that we are providing to tell citizens in the east midlands about Government services, there is a minicom service to help hearing-impaired people. Throughout our policy, everything that we do reflects that practical commitment to giving real access to the disabled.
    Mr. Sheerman: While welcoming the Minister to his new position, may I ask him to be more vigorous on behalf of people with a disability? That is what they are, as there are no disabled people in our country. All people with a disability and their organisations have consistently asked not only for a charter, but for a commission to safeguard their rights. Is not it about time that his Government listened to the voice of people with a disability and acted in their interests?
    Mr. Davis: I am not going to bandy politically correct words with the hon. Gentleman. My interest is in providing the best service possible. That is what we are trying to do. He may think that that is not the right approach, but we are interested in delivering a good service to every single person suffering from a disability.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government intend to publish a further White Paper on the progress of the citizens charter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, in due course. That will show that excellent progress continues to be made.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that education is one of the sectors where there is a

    15
    demonstrable need for greater accountability on the part of educationists? Will he confirm that, in due course, arrangements will be made for the parents charter to be adjusted to reflect the additional information that will be forthcoming once the Government have ensured that national curriculum testing has been implemented throughout the country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm my hon. Friend's remarks. It is extraordinary and wrong that, in this most crucial of all public services, some people are trying to prevent publication of comparative information—despite the fact that almost right across the public sector such information is being made available. The majority of people, both in the House and the country, will regret the current action to block testing.
    Mr. Barnes: We used to have serious Question Times about issues such as energy before the Government disbanded the Department of Energy. Now, there are questions about charters, which are a complete and utter waste of time. Does not the Minister think that it is about time that some serious issues were brought before the House?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has contributed to serious questions because he has not even asked one. Surely he is aware that his Front-Bench spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), is so keen on charters that she has claimed that she invented them herself. The hon. Gentleman may be a little out of tune with his Front Bench.

    "Reinventing Government"
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his meeting with the authors of' "Reinventing Government".
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have had meetings with both authors and have been impressed by the way in which they have put forward proposals very similar to ours in the citizens charter, aimed at getting better performance out of public services at a time of spending restraint.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for a considerable number of years the Government have been putting in place many of the elements of what Osborne and Gaebler term "entrepreneurial government"? Rather than mock the citizens charter, would not the Labour party do better to learn from it?
    Does my right hon. Friend further agree that if the approach outlined in "Reinventing Government" is to be developed further here, as I believe it must be, two implications follow—we will need a new and better concordat between central and local government and we shall need more freedom of information?
    Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter two points, first, the Government have made it clear that they want good relations with local government. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently met the leaders of the various associations. Secondly, I assure my hon. Friend that no other Government have taken such steps to widen the publication of information.
    On the Osborne and Gaebler point, I shall quote Joe Rogaly, an independent journalist who writes in the Financial Times. He said about the Labour party:
    16
    "It is as if it not only missed the Osborne and Gaebler bus, it never saw it coming."
    That is an accurate description of the Labour party's understanding of these issues.
    Ms Mowlam: I want to clarify one point. The Labour party did create charters at the local authority level—in York, Birmingham and Leicester—before the Minister even thought of them. The distinct point is that charters actually work at the local level because there is commitment to accountability and freedom of information, which is not shared by the Government. The Minister was fulsome in his praise of "Reinventing Government" and he quoted Joe Rogaly. Is he aware that the authors said that if market testing is just about skimping on wages, the Government should re-evaluate what they are doing? The authors of the Minister's favourite book asked for that, and for some time we have been asking for a moratorium on market testing. It now appears that the Minister will not meet his targets for market testing that he wanted to achieve by September. Is he now listening to us about moratoriums on market testing as well as about charters?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is not my job to sort out the problems within the Labour party on this matter. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have some discussions with her hon. Friends. It is clear that she has not read the book, which has a strong passage in support of market testing. Obviously, she has also not read the White Paper "Competing for Quality". It is not just about cutting costs; it is about quality. If we can get quality at lower costs, that is certainly what we should do.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the principles of Osborne and Gaebler is that both national and local government should be steering rather than rowing, to put it in their terms? Is not that in line with the Government's commitment to contracting out? Are there not lessons for Labour local authorities, especially education authorities, in their attitude towards grant-maintained schools, which have precisely the independence that is so lauded by Osborne and Gaebler?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right, although I think that some far-seeing people on the left also understand that. I am sorry that the Opposition do not. John Willman, who used to run the Fabian Society, wrote:
    "In the UK it has been the Conservatives under John Major who have seized the 'reinventing' government agenda."
    That is true.

    Research Vessel Service
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultation he has had regarding the future of the research vessel service at Barry, Glamorgan.
    Mr. David Davis: None. That matter is for the Natural Environment Research Council.
    Mr. Morgan: Notwithstanding that buck-passing answer, and despite my earlier congratulations to the Minister on his elevation from the Whips Office, does he agree that the key to the research vessel service's move to Southampton, if it does occur, is that it must remain an independent facility available to all marine science and oceanography university departments and other research bodies in the United Kingdom? The NERC's latest

    17
    proposal is that the service will become part of Southampton university's department of oceanography, so the marine science departments in Cardiff, Cambridge, Bangor, Aberdeen and elsewhere believe that they will get the mucky end of the stick and that Southampton will run the whole show. Does the Minister agree that that contradicts the original purpose of the service's move from Barry to Southampton?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I did not realise that universities had become closed societies. The intention behind moving the facility to Southampton is to create a world-class centre for research and development and training on one site, which will make more efficient use of resources and improve support for staff and students. All that is to be welcomed.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the research vessel service is a classic example of the kind of NERC facility that could be put out to market testing? Should not more NERC services be put out for market testing?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is correct. It is our intention to put out the operational side of the research vessel service to market testing. We would expect to see improved efficiency and quality of service arising from that.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from disabled people's organisations in respect of the citizens charter.
    Mr. David Davis: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had a constructive meeting with the all-party disablement group in December 1992.
    Mr. Wareing: My question referred to "disabled people's organisations". Does the Minister think it right —citizens charter or no citizens charter—that a disabled person should be shown the door of a public house simply because he or she is deaf? Does he believe that it is right for it to be legal to discriminate against a disabled person, who can be ejected from a cinema or prevented from taking out an insurance policy? Is that first-class citizenship for the disabled? Will the Government legislate against such practices? If not, what will the Minister do about them?
    Mr. Davis: Obviously, no one approves of the sort of behaviour to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The solution is not the creation of legal rights specific to people with disabilities. That would not be practical or effective.

    Scientific Links (Japan)
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures his Department is taking to improve Britain's scientific links with Japan.
    Mr. David. Davis: I can announce that an advisory group is being set up by the Office of Science and Technology to advise the Government on developing links
    18
    with not only Japan but all Pacific rim countries. Later this year, we shall host the third in a series of high-level, round-table talks between senior science policymakers from the United Kingdom and Japan. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will visit Japan in the autumn.
    Dr. Clark: Can my hon. Friend confirm that when bilateral meetings with the Japanese take place to discuss scientific links, they will truly be two-way dialogues? Does he agree that it would be inappropriate for us to continue to provide ideas for the Japanese to develop without a balance of information in the opposite direction?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend voices a widespread belief, which is not entirely unfounded, that Japanese business scours the world for free ideas. One has to say, who can blame them?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The reality is, if Opposition Members will wait for it, that Japan is paying hundreds of billions more every year in royalties to purchase licences, and so on. It is in our interests to encourage that, because we receive more than £1 billion a year in royalty and licence income. As to my hon. Friend's specific question, the White Paper, "Realising our Potential", set out our way of making the best use of British research. That includes technology foresight, which is a Japanese technique for achieving the very aims to which my hon. Friend referred. We will, of course, seek to make the meetings, as my hon. Friend said, a two-way dialogue.

    Departmental Papers
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria are applied in decisions on whether to make departmental policy papers available to the public.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Ministers and their Departments have a duty to give Parliament and the public as full information as possible about the policies, decisions and actions of government, within necessary constraints such as considerations of national security, protection of privacy and confidentiality of advice given by civil servants to Ministers.
    Mr. Wicks: Given the Government's alleged commitment to open government and freedom of information, and given that national security implications are not involved, will the Minister arrange for the publication of the review contained in the public expenditure departmental papers? If he is able to do that, will he also arrange for me to pop round and look at some of the papers this afternoon?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No. Discussions within government leading to public expenditure decisions should be—and would be, under any freedom-of-information regime in the world—private to government until those decisions are made.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from any Minister to make a statement about the agreement by the Council of Ministers to approve the working time directive that involves the 48-hour week provision? Is not the matter desperately important, given the conflicting advice from Brussels and Whitehall in regard to whether the directive will have the force of law while the Government are contemplating an appeal to the European Court? Should not a statement be made?
Madam Speaker: I have received no such request. No doubt Ministers have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Bryan Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise what I consider to be a gross breach of the conventions of the House; I think that you may agree. I have given notice to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) of my intention to raise the matter.
A constituent of mine, Susan May, was convicted of murder on 5 May. She has written from Risley prison—an action group formed only two weeks ago has written as well—to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, who has a certain reputation some would say, notoriety—for his interest in the more lurid happenings in the Oldham area, which includes his constituency.
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order must be addressed to me, and should not be colourful or elaborate.
Mr. Davies: It is a convention, Madam Speaker, for us regularly to forward letters addressed from neighbouring constituencies to the hon. Members concerned. On this occasion, far from forwarding the letters that he had received to me—and despite having announced to the local press that he had done so—the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth has said that he is taking an interest in the case, and will discuss it with the Attorney-General. The Susan May action group has subsequently met me and put me in the picture, and Susan May's solicitors have submitted an appeal.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to reinforce the conventions of the House, to ensure that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth does not interfere in my constituency cases or those of any other hon. Member; that he forwards to me the representations that he has received from my constituents; and that he bears in mind that he is singularly ill placed to take up the interests of anyone convicted of murder, given that he regularly professes to be in favour of capital punishment.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I did make a statement in the local paper, because I had received a number of letters about the case. I referred all my correspondents to their Member of Parliament, suggesting that they bring the matter to his attention. It was only when I had gone home for the recess that I found a letter from the prisoner herself—a cry for help, asking me to take an interest in her case.
20
The House has only just reassembled, and I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the prisoner's Member of Parliament. He has acknowledged receipt of a letter that I sent to the prisoner, and placed on the Board today. He will understand the details. I do not think that you should have been bothered with the matter, Madam Speaker; it is so petty. Here is someone in prison, convicted of murder; meanwhile, the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) is making petty points about that person in the House of Commons.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me deal with that point of order.
That is not a matter for the Speaker of this House. However, the convention is that hon. Members do not act on behalf of another Member's constituents in personal cases. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding about whether or not letters have been forwarded, or received. That is not, as I have said, a matter for me, and it cannot be resolved on the Floor of the House. I hope that both hon. Members can agree between themselves how this matter is to be pursued.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On an entirely different point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible, even at this very late stage, to table an amendment to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill to prevent the purchase of political parties by trade unions? I need your advice, in the light of the remarks of John Edmonds today that we—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman immediately. I do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House. If he comes to see me later, I shall do my best to advise him.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have here a booklet that describes the procedure to be followed by Ministers over the acceptance of presents. The advice that they are given is that they should not accept presents, as Ministers should be under no obligation. Would it be possible for hon. Members to submit questions to the Table Office regarding the representations made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, regarding Mr. Nadir who, as you know, has fled justice?
Would it be possible for hon. Members to find out from questions, which I hope could be tabled, why the Secretary of State and the Minister of State made representations about someone who is not one of their constituents? In addition, what proceedings could we take to find out whether anything has taken place which should not have taken place?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put to me a most convoluted point of order, but again it is a question of procedure. If the hon. Gentleman wants advice about procedure, he ought to go and see the authorities of the House, or come and see me, as I advised earlier. I am not prepared to give advice on matters of procedure across the Floor of the House.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some advice on what to do when Ministers state that they cannot answer a question, on the grounds of disproportionate

21
cost? I asked a specific question about the cost over the next 20 years of the commitment to public sector pensions for civil servants and others. I have been told that the unfunded liability, which does not appear anywhere in Government accounts, is £170 billion. I wanted that figure to be broken down for me on an annualised basis. When one is considering £170 billion of public expenditure, it would surely not be disproportionately costly to be provided with the details of that expenditure.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is arguing about the decision of a Minister. I am certainly not going to discuss such a decision. It is for Ministers to argue for themselves. Perhaps it is because I am looking so fresh after my holidays that there are so many points of order today.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago you said that it was not a matter for you but that it was a convention of the House that Members of Parliament did not take up cases in somebody else's constituency. Will you, then, help us to explain to our constituents how it comes about that not just a Back Bencher but a Minister of the Crown—the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—was able to take up the case of Asil Nadir, who was not one of his constituents?
Would it not make a lot of sense if he were to come to the House, along with the President of the Board of Trade, to explain the precise relationship between Asil Nadir and the Tory party and the representations that have been made on his behalf?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, find some parliamentary method by means of which he can tease out those matters.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Madam Speaker. As the Latin quotation—
Madam Speaker: Order. That point of order has been dealt with. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a different point of order.
Mr. Jessel: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was going to say—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will not take any further points of order on that matter. Does the hon. Gentleman have a fresh point of order for me?
Mr. Jessel: I wanted to say that as the Latin quotation "Non illegitimis carborundum" means "Don't let the bastards grind you down", not "Don't let the buggers get you down"—
Madam Speaker: Order. A little merriment on our first day back is in order, but the hon. Gentleman is going over the top.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can I raise a serious matter? During the recess, I sent approximately 250 letters from my constituency office to my constituents, quoting a statement made at the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State for Social Security on 19 May in the debate on automated credit transfer and post offices. He said:
22
"All small post offices are currently paid a fixed sum, regardless of volume, so people switching to ACT will make little difference to the amount of remuneration they receive." —[Official Report, 19 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 259.]
The problem is that postmistresses in my constituency are challenging that statement, with the result that I—or Parliament, as I am sure that it will apply to many of my hon. Friends—am faced with the expense of sending a further 250 letters to the same constituents to explain that the Secretary of State made a mistake. I cannot say that he deliberately misled the House, but it is for my hon. Friends and the House to decide for themselves what was the intention behind the Secretary of State's statement.
Can you advise us, Madam Speaker? Should I, as a Member of Parliament, be required to correct the record of a statement made by a Minister which, if not deliberately, misled Parliament and meant that I misunderstood? To what extent is it a question of contempt?
Madam Speaker: If it is a question of contempt, the hon. Gentleman should have written to me instead of raising it in this way. It is for all hon. Members to do their best to ensure that their constituents are kept fully informed. If the hon. Gentleman has to send another letter, it is up to him to do so. He is responsible for keeping his constituents informed when they have a particular interest in a matter such as that which he has raised.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have some sympathy with the difficulties expressed by my hon. Friend, and I am corresponding with the Minister about this matter. Would it not be useful if the record were put straight and a proper explanation given in Hansard, so that at least the issue of replying could be simplified by the circulation of the amended version?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, some member of the Treasury Bench may take up his suggestion but, at this stage, there is nothing further I can do. I have had no request for such a statement to be made.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the matter to the best of my ability. The hon. Member from the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), was particularly helpful.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but Parliament is now required to correct the record as a result of the Minister's statement. I am asking perhaps for a ruling from you on whether it is a Minister's responsibility to have the record corrected rather than mine, as an individual Member of Parliament, using the House's resources.
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that it probably behoved the hon. Gentleman to inform me that he intended to raise the point of order and to take advantage of the fact that he asked the first question on this subject at Question Time, which he did not do. It also behoved the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) not to reinforce a point which is misleading the House.
If the hon. Gentleman reads column 260, the very next column to that which he quoted to his constituents, he will

23
see that I said—I was speaking from memory—that 2,700 post offices were subject to that arrangement. I can now confirm to the House that the exact number is 2,696. It seems to me that the matter is clear in Hansard. He is deliberately misleading his constituents. He should withdraw his comments and send 250 letters of apology.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have now heard three hon. Members casting serious aspersions against my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). Would you confirm that Ministers are free to make their views known about constituency matters and about issues raised by constituents to other Ministers? That is confirmed in the questions of procedure for Ministers which was issued by the Cabinet Office in May last year. It is clear from that document that my hon. Friend has done nothing wrong. Opposition Members should withdraw their accusations.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is confirming that point, he should not seek confirmation from me.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentleman should not be so intolerant. Many are rising to make points of order. Hon. Members should be patient and wait their time.
Mr. Grocott: Can you confirm briefly that, not for the first time, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has got things hopelessly wrong? The crucial issue is hon. Members looking after the interests of their own constituents. Can you confirm from the Chair—this would he very helpful—that all the representations made on behalf of Mr. Nadir by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office and by the President of the Board of Trade were not representations made on behalf of their own constituents?
Would it therefore be your guidance to those right hon. and hon. Members that, if they ever make similar representations in future, and on the basis of those already made—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have no intention of making any comments on individual cases that are raised in this manner. It is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Grocott: I think it is.
Madam Speaker: Order. With respect, it is not a point of order for me. No hon. Member should expect me to comment across the Floor of the House on such an individual situation. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Rod Richards: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It might be helpful to Conservative Members for Opposition Members, when they catch your eye, to tell us whether their allegiance is to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) or to John Edmonds, the leader of the Labour party in the country.
Madam Speaker: Order. Hilarity is one thing, but this is an abuse of the time of the House.
Mr. Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any requests from the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement on the circumstances in which pits were closed last week, especially in relation to the home security of miners made redundant? Many of those miners have mortgages and the terms of their mortgage policies give no mortgage protection if they are made voluntarily rather than compulsorily redundant.
Has the President of the Board of Trade asked you for permission to come before this House to explain what steps the Government will take to ensure that at least the homes of the miners who have forcibly been made redundant by British Coal will be protected? As things stand, those miners will lose their homes as well as their jobs, because British Coal insists on calling the redundancies voluntary, when the whole world knows that they are compulsory.
Madam Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that no Minister asks me for permission to make a statement. He informs me that he wishes to make a statement. I have no authority in the matter. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had no such information.
We now come to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am most grateful to you. You will know that I was in correspondence with you over the recess on two matters connected with today's proceedings.
First, would it be possible in your view for the Minister during the course of the day to explain why no new immigration rules on asylum or immigration appeal procedure rules are available for today's debate? I checked at the Vote Office a few minutes ago and it confirmed that both instruments are not available. They are extremely important in terms of interpreting the effects of the legislation that we are debating this afternoon.
The second matter concerns the opportunity that the Minister will have today to inform the House about the outcome of the meeting of European Community Immigration Ministers in Copenhagen last week. You will know from our correspondence, Madam Speaker, that it was reported that important decisions with a direct bearing on the substance of this afternoon's debate were taken at that meeting.
I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me today on the matter. He confirms in his letter that
"agreement was reached on, amongst other matters, Resolution on guidelines regarding the admission of particularly vulnerable groups of persons from the former Yugoslavia, and on the harmonisation of national policies on family reunification."
Those matters are of literally life-and-death importance. I believe that, rather than the information being given in a letter to me, the Minister should be given an opportunity as early as possible this afternoon to report to the House on the decisions to which he was party last week in Copenhagen. The decisions have important implications for the many people who are settled in this country who are either applying for refugee status or who have refugee status and who wish to have their immediate relatives join them in this country.
Mr. Graham Allen: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The House is to discuss an important matter, but half the documentation

25
that we need to discuss the matter properly is missing and is not available to hon. Members. I refer to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) in respect of the rules of procedure relating both to asylum and to immigration appeals. Without those documents, we shall be conducting half a debate this afternoon.
Even at this late stage, is it possible to request that those documents—if available—should be made available to hon. Members?
Madam Speaker: Whether the documents relate to today's debate is a matter of opinion. We shall be debating not the Bill, which has already been debated, but Lords amendments proposed to it. Therefore, it is a matter of opinion for hon. Members and Ministers whether the documents to which the hon. Gentleman refers are necessary for our debate.
In saying that, I think that I also respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). As the hon. Gentleman understands, this is not a general debate on immigration matters. I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern, however. Provided that Back Benchers and Front Benches alike remain within the terms of the amendments before us, the Minister can give the House whatever information he wishes. Perhaps we may now come to the amendments.

Orders of the Day
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

    Before clause 3
    Lords amendment: No. 1, insert the following new clause— Young unaccompanied asylum seekers—
    " (.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order establish an advisory panel for the purpose of making advice available to a child who has arrived in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by an adult person capable of looking after him.
    (2) The members of such advisory panel shall be appointed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of section (Appointment and. functions of advisory panel) below and shall have the functions therein described.
    (3) A member of such advisory panel is referred to as an asylum-seekers adviser.
    (4) Where a child unaccompanied by an adult person capable of looking after him arrives in the United Kingdom and is, or appears to an immigration officer to be, under the age of 18 years and such child has made, or may reasonably be considered as desiring to make, a claim for asylum, the immigration officer shall notify the advisory panel with a view to the child being forthwith referred to an appropriate asylum-seekers adviser for the purpose of carrying out the functions described in section (Appointment and functions of advisory panel) below.)."
    3.52 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Speaker: With this, it will he convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 2 and the Government motion to disagree, and Lords amendment No. 12 and the Government motion to disagree. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 involve privilege.
    Mr. Wardle: Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would place on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a
    statutory duty to establish a panel of advisers whose function would be to befriend and advise asylum seekers under the age of 16 who arrive in this country unaccompanied by an adult.
    The House will be aware that the amendments were passed on Report in the other place and reflect the widely felt and understandable concern that we should be seen to be doing all we can to protect the interests and welfare of unaccompanied child asylum seekers. The Government understand, respect and share that concern.
    Our decision not to accept the two amendments is not based on any lack of sympathy for unaccompanied children arriving in this country. As I shall show shortly, we intend to meet in a very practical manner the spirit and purpose of the proposals by Lord Brightman, who moved the amendments in another place. Let me take this early opportunity to thank the noble Lord and commend him for his courteous advice and helpful guidance on such matters.
    I should also make it clear that our decision is not based on questions of cost. The amendments would create a charge on public funds and, if this House disagrees with the amendments, the formal reason which will have to be given is that they infringe the privileges of this House.

    27
    However, as I will show shortly, the Government are prepared to provide resources to help meet the needs of those children in what we believe is a more appropriate way. Therefore, cost is not the issue.
    The Government are as determined as anyone to see that the immigration status of such children is resolved with the minimum of delay and stress, and that the proper arrangements are made for their care, accommodation, health and education needs. The real point of difference between the Government's approach and the approach adopted in the amendments is that we do not believe that the creation of a statutory panel of advisers is the best way to protect the interests of this group of children.
    I will refer in a moment to our own view of how that should be achieved, but first I want to explain why we do not believe that including a statutory requirement in the Bill for the creation of a panel of advisers and the assignment of an adviser to every asylum-seeking child is either necessary or desirable.
    The amendments envisage that the adviser would give advice to the young asylum seeker on immigration matters and on a range of welfare issues, including accommodation, health and education. Dealing first with immigration matters, there may be a belief that, without an adviser to protect their interests, unaccompanied children are at risk of being sent to countries where they may be in danger of persecution or where there is no one to look after them.
    I can assure the House that any such fears are misplaced and unfounded. In the first place, the 1951 convention on refugees applies to children in exactly the same way that it applies to adults. The strict issue to be resolved in determining a claim for asylum is the same for a child as it is for an adult—would his removal result in his being sent to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened?
    Over and above that asylum issue, simple humanity demands that any immigration decision to remove an unaccompanied child involves consideration of whether safe and adequate reception arrangements for the child can be made. We would not send an unaccompanied child to another country, whether or nor that child had claimed asylum, unless we were satisfied that such arrangements had been made.
    Of course we recognise that children who are claiming asylum may need help with the presentation of their cases to the Home Office. The Home Office already funds the refugee legal centre to provide advice to asylum seekers and representation in asylum appeals. That body is currently developing a team of counsellors designated to dealing with vulnerable applicants, including children.
    Those counsellors will he specialists in asylum procedures and in preparing and presenting cases. They will have access to a considerable body of knowledge about conditions in countries from which asylum seekers come. We do not believe that it would be sensible for a panel of advisers to seek to duplicate that role.
    Meeting the longer-term welfare needs of the child is clearly the responsibility of the appropriate local authority. The provisions of the Children Act 1989 make no distinction on the basis of a child's nationality or immigration status. They apply in the same way to
    28
    unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as they apply to any other child in this country who has no responsible adult capable of looking after his welfare and interests.
    There is a statutory duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of all the children they look after and to satisfy themselves that the welfare of privately fostered children is satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted. In other words, the function which the amendments would confer on a new panel of advisers is already part of the statutory function of a local authority.
    The local authority is the body best placed in terms of personnel, experience, facilities and resources to care for the needs of unaccompanied children. To create a new statutory' body charged with those functions could create a duplication of effort and blur lines of responsibility.
    The amendments appear to recognise that risk by stating that nothing in the two new clauses affects the powers or duties of local authorities. However, as the primary responsibility is to continue to rest with the local authority, it is difficult to see why the functions of the proposed adviser need to be placed on a statutory basis.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister prayed in aid the role of the children's legal centre. He will know that it has advocated a guardianship system or a panel of advisers along the lines of the Brightman amendment.
    Mr. Wardle: As I hope to demonstrate to the House, what we propose in the way of a panel of advisers will meet with the approval of the refugee legal centre and other interested parties.
    The amendments envisage that the panel will include, so far as is practicable, persons who can speak the child's language, who are familiar with the habits and customs of the child's homeland and who have knowledge of child care legislation and immigration procedures.
    We recognise that local authority social services departments may need help in some or several of those aspects, but the extent and nature of the help that is needed will vary from case to case. There may be cases in which the involvement of a person with specialised background knowledge of the child's own country and language is of help both to the child and to the social services, but there might equally be cases in which the local authority is able to meet that need from within its own resources, and the involvement of a separate adviser is unnecessary and might even be counter-productive.
    4 pm
    Moreover, unaccompanied children might arrive from anywhere in the world and it would not be possible to guarantee—indeed, it seems quite unlikely—that any statutory panel of advisers could provide for every child a person who had the relevant language skills and background knowledge. It is difficult to see how the appointment of an adviser without those qualifications would materially assist the child.
    A statutory requirement for the appointment of an adviser for every unaccompanied asylum-seeking child therefore seems too rigid. What is needed is a system which can operate flexibly to provide appropriate response to the needs of each child, to fill gaps where they exist, and to avoid creating duplication of effort or confusion of responsibilities where gaps do not exist. There are existing

    29
    responsibilities covering all the needs of children in that position. Inevitably, different needs are covered by different services.
    We believe that the crucial task is to ensure that those different services mesh together properly and that those providing the services have the support and specialised advice that they need. It is vital to mobilise and harness the potential sources of help within the various communities that are already here. We believe that those ends will be better achieved by supporting practical, non-statutory initiatives rather than by imposing a new statutory framework that might conflict with other statutory requirements.
    The Home Office has agreed in principle to fund a non-statutory panel of advisers, which the Refugee Council has offered to establish and administer. The advisers would be volunteers from the communities from which most children could be expected to come, selected for their suitability for that role, and given the necessary training.
    It is envisaged that, when an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child arrives in this country or comes to the notice of the Home Office when they are already in this country and applying, as some do, the immigration officer or the Home Office would notify both the appropriate social services department and the administrator of the new panel, who would offer the services of an adviser to the social services department wherever that was possible and desirable.
    The function of the adviser would principally be to ensure that the social services department was aware of the child's wishes and of relevant cultural considerations and that the child understands as far as possible, taking his or her age into account, what is happening and what choices he or she has.
    The agreement to fund the panel of advisers is necessarily for one year in the first instance, but that does not indicate any lack of commitment on the Government's part to the longer term view. Public expenditure decisions have to be taken on an annual basis. There is no way in which I can give the House a cast-iron guarantee of a specific level of support in future years, particularly in relation to a new commitment that has not featured in our earlier spending plans, but we certainly intend to give the scheme sufficient support to enable the concept of children's advisers to have a fair period of trial.
    We believe that the scheme will—
    Mr. Mike Watson: The Minister contradicted himself. I have been taking down some of the points that he has been making. He said, "Cost is not the issue." He has now gone on to say that he cannot give any forward cost commitments. What is the position? Is cost the issue or one of the issues?
    Mr. Wardle: I have made it perfectly clear that cost is not the issue. I have explained that I am able to specify only what will be offerred in the first year. I cannot give any guarantees. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) understands how the Treasury functions, and he understands the rules in these matters. It is not possible for me, particularly with an entirely new operation such as this, to give detailed promises for future years. What I can do is to repeat what I have already said to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me, as he sought to intervene.
    30
    We certainly intend to give the scheme sufficient support to enable the concept of children's advisers to have a fair period of trial. That is what is most important. The scheme will provide a person to act as a friend and adviser. That will offer a better, more flexible way in which to meet the identified needs of some children than would a statutory scheme. The funding of the proposed Refugee Council panel of advisers is part of a package of Government proposals for supporting and strengthening the ability of existing services to deal with the needs of those children.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister appears to suggest that the Home Office will fund the Refugee Council's scheme during the first year. What would happen if a larger number of unaccompanied children than expected arrived? Would the council be expected to fund that excess by cutting other funding, or would the Home Office be prepared to increase its grant to enable the council to continue that scheme?
    Mr. Wardle: We shall see as we go along. The purpose of the trial period is to match events with our experience. The Refugee Council will operate the panel and, together, we have considered the experience of recent years and the number of unaccompanied juvenile arrivals seeking asylum. We shall watch matters as they go and respond accordingly. We have told the council that we will provide the funding for the first year and then see how it goes.
    I realise that time is pressing, and I should like to outline the other initiatives that we have taken. First, in the very near future, the Department of Health will issue to all local authority social services departments a practice guide entitled "Refugee and Asylum Seeking Children Alone in the United Kingdom". It will also issue a training package addressing the training needs of staff working with children outside their culture and families. That should raise awareness of those issues and help the development of the necessary expertise.
    Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend will add to the immigration rules guidance on the treatment of asylum applications by children. I have already received constructive comments on a first draft of those rules on behalf of the Children's Legal Centre, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the British Refugee Council and the Save the Children Fund.
    Thirdly, we will continue and will put on a more formal basis the arrangements by which the immigration service notifies social services of the arrival, or expected arrival, of groups of unaccompanied children. That will help to ensure that any danger of children falling between the responsibilities of the different services is minimised.
    Fourthly, we propose to set up a more formal mechanism, also with that aim in mind, so that when an unaccompanied child is given temporary admission to the United Kingdom, all the relevant details of that child, his circumstances of arrival, links with the United Kingdom and so on will be passed to the social services department for the area in which he will stay, whether or not that child is already in the care of social services.
    Fifthly, we recognise that it is desirable to resolve the immigration status of unaccompanied children as swiftly as possible, so that they and the authorities responsible for their care should not be left in doubt for any longer than

    31
    is absolutely necessary. We are therefore making arrangements to identify such cases and give them priority treatment within the asylum division.
    Sixthly, on 3 February, my right hon. and learned Friend, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Home Secretary, announced his intention to provide a special grant to assist local authorities that face exceptional costs arising from the presence in their areas of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children. The distribution of such children is inevitably uneven, with particular concentrations near the airports and in certain London boroughs. The new grant recognises those pressures and is further evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that the statutory services are able to respond effectively to the needs of those children.
    Seventhly, the British Red Cross is compiling a register of unaccompanied children who come to this country to facilitate eventual reunion with their families, where possible. The Home Office and the Department of Health will co-operate fully with the Red Cross in the compilation of that register.
    Those seven measures demonstrate our commitment to protect the interests of unaccompanied children and our concern to find sensible and workable ways in which to do that.
    Amendment No. 12 appears to have been inserted in another place by mistake. It states:
    "Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge … on public funds".s
    Such an amendment is usually inserted in Bills commencing in another place to avoid infringement of the privileges of this House. The Bill has financial implications which mainly arise from the administration of a new system of asylum appeals. Therefore, the amendment should be rejected.
    Mr. Graham Allen: As we discuss the Lords amendments, the House has its first chance to debate asylum in the light of events during the past few weeks. It gives us all, regardless of party, the opportunity to condemn the divisive and self-seeking speech of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) last weekend. I hope that the new Home Secretary has had the chance to reconsider the equivocal and slippery response that he made immediately after that speech and will now condemn it without qualification. As the debate progresses, he will have a chance to do so.
    The rich vein of prejudice tapped by the hon. Member for Davyhulme in order to improve his chances of selection under the redrawn boundaries is strong and deep in the Conservative party. I hope that the Home Secretary finds the personal and political courage to confront and condemn that deep strain in his party.
    Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend should give way to the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Allen: I should be pleased to do so if the Home Secretary wished to intervene.
    The Home Secretary joins the procession of faces whose leadership pretensions have meant that immigrants and even desperate asylum seekers have been viewed not as people but as political footballs to be kicked around in front of the Tory faithful. The previous Home Secretary sought to establish his credibility with the xenophobic
    32
    right by making life harder for anyone seeking a visitor visa, for students, mothers, the elderly and people coming to this country for marriage ceremonies, christenings or visits to relatives.
    That was the tough vested interest taken on by the previous Home Secretary in immigration and asylum. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) was another graduate from the smarm school and, aided by the tabloid newspapers, he conducted a scurrilous campaign to play the race card just before the last general election. We all expect that that card will be played again before the next one.
    Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 provide a chance for a new leaf to be turned. I hope that the new Home Secretary will not fail that test, as he failed the test last week. I hope that the message is heard and understood by black and Asian communities up and down Britian. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 show the two-faced approach of Conservative policy—how easily the smile on the Conservative face which is displayed to settled communities in Britain quickly turns to a snarl when another audience is addressed. Perhaps there has never been a Home Secretary more suited to or practised in playing such a role.
    A clear moral lead is necessary at this stage in the nation's history. Let us hope that the new Home Secretary provides that lead unequivocally and does not show the slipperiness that he displayed last weekend.
    Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 show that nowhere are such short-term, hand-to-mouth policies more evident than in the very flawed Bill. We opposed the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and now even their Lordships have sought to leave an opening or two for the Conservatives to mitigate the Bill's worst defects. The Minister today rejected the statutory scheme to look after child asylum seekers and offered a voluntary non-statutory alternative. That is not good enough for the Opposition.
    Perhaps we are being a little mistrustful—why should we not accept the Minister's assurances? Why should the assurances have to appear in the Bill? Why should we not trust the Conservative Government? Part of the answer lies in what the Conservatives have been cooking up with other Ministers in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said earlier, European immigration Ministers met in Copenhagen last week. No statements have been given to the House about that. Many of us thought that today's debate might be curtailed by a statement from the Minister about that Copenhagen meeting—
    Mr. Charles Wardle: There is never a statement.
    Mr. Allen: The Minister makes my point for me when he says, from a sedentary position, that there never is a statement. The whole European dimension of immigration and asylum policy takes place in secret: to use the Minister's words, there is never a statement.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but would he be good enough to tell me which Lords amendments he is speaking to at the moment?
    Mr. Allen: I am making the point, Madam Speaker, that we need the assurances that the amendments seek on the face of the Bill. The amendments try to include in the

    33
    Bill certain clear statutory obligations, but the Government are trying to avoid such obligations by opposing the Lords amendments.
    So, what was decided in the secret conclave last week? First, Ministers rejected an appeal from Sadako Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for the right of family reunions—
    4.15 pm
    Mr. Charles Wardle: The hon. Gentleman says in one breath that the Copenhagen deliberations were held in secret; in the next, he lists what happened there. I assume that he has seen the press release from the general secretariat of the Council which outlines all the decisions that were taken. He also knows full well that the usual practice since 1986 following such meetings has been that, in response to a written answer, details of decisions are given to the House and placed in the Library.
    Mr. Allen: I hope that the Minister is not claiming that he has already given an answer to a written question and that Members should have seen it before this debate. They could not possibly have done so, as this is our first day back.
    Hon. Members often mention to you, Madam Speaker, in points of order, that it is not satisfactory that the business of the Government should be reported in press releases or planted questions. When matters of policy and strategy are at stake, they should be reported to the House and statements on them should be made on the Floor of the House.
    I was referring to the appeals from Mrs. Ogata in respect of the right of family reunion, which she suggested should be extended to the few thousand Bosnians given temporary admission to the EC. I understand from press reports—not from any communication from the Government—that EC Ministers agreed on guidelines for the admission of particularly vulnerable people from the former Yugoslavia. I understand that their recommendations were:
    "As far as possible, arrangements will be made for contacts to be maintained with close relatives"—
    that is, with spouses and children.
    "In exceptional circumstances, in particular on humanitarian grounds, provisional permission to stay may be granted for this purpose".
    The implication is that Bosnian victims of atrocities, many of them children, will not usually be allowed to bring their families to join them in the host country.
    These restrictions on children come on top of the Government's appalling record of failing to meet even their own derisory quotas for Bosnian refugees. We were assured in November 1992 that 1,000 people and their dependants could be accepted to this country—a small contribution—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must call the hon. Gentleman to order again, because I fear that he is not relating what he is saying to the Lords amendments. This is not a general Second Reading debate. We are dealing with just three Lords amendments, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate what he says directly to them.
    Mr. Allen: My point has to do with children being granted in the Bill a statutory right which is evident in the amendments—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Might I ask the hon. Gentleman to which part of the amendments he is referring? I am reading them carefully even as he speaks, and he could help me by telling me which section of the amendments he is speaking to.
    Mr. Allen: I am dealing with the amendments in their entirety.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking generally, but we are not on Second Reading. He must address specific points in the amendments.
    Mr. Allen: The amendments refer to the statutory responsibilities that we hope will be placed on the Government. They relate to the dependants of many Bosnians who have not yet been allowed into the country. The Government promised that 1,000 people plus their dependants, many of whom are children and many of whom will be caught by the legislation, would be allowed in.
    Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 must be incorporated in the Bill because, although we respect the Minister, assurances on this matter are not sufficient. I am afraid that, once again, I must query the Government's track record on assurances, especially in terms of the United Nations convention on the rights of children. The Government have entered reservations on that convention and many organisations and individuals have asked for them to be rescinded. Those reservations exempt the United Kingdom from implementing articles pertaining to immigration and nationality.
    Those issues are relevant to the children who are currently separated from their families in the former Yugoslavia and they affect the implementation of several articles. Article 3 states:
    "In all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
    United Kingdom immigration law does not take any account of the welfare of children.
    Article 2 provides that all the convention's rights apply to all children and not merely to those to whom the Government wish the rights to apply. Contrary to article 12 on a child's right to be heard, refugee children are treated like adults in the United Kingdom refugee determination process and are thus denied a proper opportunity to express their views and their wishes.
    The Government's track record is one of the reasons why the Opposition wish to see these amendments in the Bill. The legislation must contain the responsibilities and the duties that we want to press the Government to carry out. If the amendments are accepted, they will ensure, for the first time in the United Kingdom, a realistic and comprehensive service for child asylum seekers. The adoption of that service would lead to a profound change from the way that the asylum services have operated since Britain signed the United Nations convention on refugees. We have an opportunity to put into law the principles that should govern our treatment of children as a distinct social group requiring specific attention.
    Many people who come to our shores through the air and sea ports arrive full of fear, without friends, not speaking the language and with no one to look after them. They enter a wholly different culture. Many of them are traumatised by their experiences. Sadly, there are many examples that I could give the House, but I shall give one example of a person who would be assisted by the

    35
    amendments. Tamba, a 13-year-old girl from Eritrea, was put on a plane to the United Kingdom by her mother to save her life. The home of Tamba's grandparents, to which she had been sent for safety after she had been assaulted on three occasions by soldiers, had been bombed. The soldiers had threatened to return to her village to find her and, after the bombing of her grandparents' home, Tamba's mother felt that she had no choice but to send the child away.
    I am sure that the Home Secretary and his Ministers will have to deal with many such heart-rending stories. I hope that they will bear in mind, in assessing Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2, that it would be of great assistance, not merely to such victims but to the organisations that seek to help them, to have in the Bill provisions to which we would have to adhere. That would enable us to test the Government's assurances and good will. We are not talking about an insignificant problem. In 1990, there were 128 children in that position. In 1992, there were 185. The latest statistic that we have, from a parliamentary question, shows that, to April 1993, there were 62 children.
    Mr. Charles Wardle indicated assent.
    Mr. Allen: I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that.
    Mr. Max Madden: If the reports are true, the British Government, together with other European Community Governments, have adopted a restrictive policy on family reunion. Does not what my hon. Friend has said show that, in months and years to come, as more unaccompanied children come to the United Kingdom, there will be a need for liberal policies on family reunion, rather than such harsh and restrictive policies? Is not it about time that the Minister intervened to tell us clearly what the British Government's policy is on family reunion and what harmonisation of those policies mean?
    Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and will be glad to give way to the Minister, or to the Home Secretary, if he cares to answer that question. Sadly, given all the conflicts and political disruptions around the world, I am afraid that it is likely that the number of children caught in such conflicts is unlikely to diminish, and it may increase. It is particularly important that the rules, whether they are harsh or tough, are written in the Bill for all to see, rather than being subject to good will or assurances, which sadly, in too many cases in the past, have not been forthcoming when tested in the extreme under the Government.
    Hitherto, we have treated child asylum seekers as adults. The UNHCR and the Children Act 1989 recognise that as a serious problem. The UNHCR, along with the British Refugee Council, Amnesty International and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants recognise and have argued that children such as Tamba and many others in similar positions should not be treated as adults by immigration officials.
    In private, many immigration officials have accepted that they do not have social work or child care skills. They feel that the best that they can do is to pass those children on to voluntary and local authority organisations. However, despite the efforts that local authorities put in to
    36
    looking after those children, many cannot provide the assistance that they may need. There are no formal rules or a comprehensive plan that links social services departments with immigration officials.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the system for dealing with unaccompanied child refugees is a positive disincentive on any local authority to take on the responsibility for such children, as the authority knows that it will cost it a great deal of money, which it is not likely to get back from central Government—
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Shame.
    Mr. Corbyn: It is all very well for the Minister to say "Sr j 3–5hame", as he is not the one to have to take on that responsibility. His Government have consistently refused to fund inner-London local authorities, which have needed help to deal with those poor, unfortunate children. His Government cast those children on to the streets, not local authorities.
    Mr. Allen: As so often happened in Committee, my hon. Friend has made the point that I was about to come to far more eloquently than I could. We need to ensure that local authorities—this is separate from the clause and I am conscious of the need not to go out of order—are properly funded in the duties that they undertake.
    Adopting Lords amendments 1 and 2, which would establish a statutory children's panel, would help children through the complex procedure now being established in the Bill. The panel will be able to help children through the legal process and explore a better understanding of their needs. It will go some way to combining the 1989 United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Children Act to ensure that children's rights are respected.
    We have an opportunity to reflect the needs of the child in the refugee determination procedures, and we should take it. I call on the Government, even at this very late stage, to drop their opposition to a statutorily based children's panel.
    4.30 pm
    It is interesting to note that section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 states:
    "When a court determines any question with respect to—(a) the upbringing of a child …
    the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration."
    In Committee, the Minister said that that Act did not extend to immigration hearings. However, child asylum seekers may have to go to the High Court or the Appeal Court for judicial review of their asylum claims. That is unacceptable to all those involved in immigration cases, except the Minister. He still has time to change his mind, accept that the child's interests should be paramount and accept the Lords amendments.
    The children's panel will provide as comprehensive a service as it can, even on the proposed non-statutory basis. It will certainly provide considerably more than what is available at present. It will be able to meet children as soon as they arrive and assist them in their search for legal advice and proper care until their families are found or their future lives properly planned.
    Wendy Ayotte of the Children's Legal Centre said:
    "Unless the government accepts some responsibility, how can it expect local authorities to provide anything more than the most basic needs of children who need a great deal of special help?"

    37
    We are—if it needs to be stressed again—dealing with children with profound problems. Many of them are traumatised; many have lost parents or had a bloody separation from them in a foreign land. They are ill equipped to deal with the environment in which they find themselves.
    We are all aware of the economic mess that the Government have created. However, for a very small amount of money a great deal of human misery could be alleviated if the Government do the job properly. We cannot any longer leave children solely dependent on local authorities for care. The Government must accept their share of what is an international responsibility. To date, Ministers have tended to leave us all in the dark. From the outset, they have not shown any support for the principle embodied in the Lords amendments, which makes us a little suspicious of their sudden conversion to a non-statutory scheme. In fact, their prevarication is one reason why the Bill has taken so long to come back before the House.
    It is not sufficient to have a non-statutory scheme. In many cases the Government, through the Bill, have created the problems, so it is only right that they should support the solutions to those problems. I hope that they will support the Lords amendments and not opt for a non-statutory scheme. They should join Labour Members in supporting the proposals to aid those children—the most vulnerable individuals—as they seek asylum and refuge in our country.
    Mr. Maclennan: This is the last appearance of the Bill before the House. It behoves us to recall that the substance of the Lords amendments were adumbrated a long time ago, even before the general election, when the previous Bill was before Parliament. It bears witness to the tenacity of purpose of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have sought to ensure that the Government's Bill to tighten control over asylum seekers would not lead to a worsening of the administrative procedures for the handling of applications by children.
    It is right to pay tribute to the work done in that respect before the Dissolution by Sir Philip Goodhart, then Conservative Member of Parliament for Beckenham who—along with many other Conservative Members—was quick to point out to the Government the need for special arrangements to ensure that the difficulties faced by children seeking to apply for asylum, which are certainly greater than those of adults, are taken into account by the Home Office.
    The two amendments drafted and passed in another place reflect the consensus that was developing across the Committee that considered the Bill that it would be desirable to provide special representation for children, who are afflicted with difficulties in understanding procedures that, quite properly, must be operated quickly when children arrive in this country and seek asylum. I refer to their fear of officialdom, language problems, and the difficulty of not knowing who is speaking for them. It is fair to say that the Minister has understood those problems all along. The question is how best to resolve them.
    It is proper to recognise the relatively limited scale of the administrative challenge posed by children seeking asylum. The problem has been greatly exaggerated— perhaps more so by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who introduced the original Bill, then
    38
    even his successor. However, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, that was in a period when a general election was overhanging, and the right hon. Member for Mole Valley may have seen some advantage in whipping up concern.
    In the event, the number of those seeking asylum in this country has proved to be far fewer than in other western European countries. Whereas events in Bosnia and eastern Europe in particular led to the Federal German Republic facing vastly increased numbers of asylum seekers—the figure runs into hundreds of thousands—the latest official figures available show that between last January and November, the United Kingdom admitted 23,390 asylum seekers, of whom a mere 129 were children. That reminds us that we are not dealing with a massive administrative problem, but that it would be unacceptable to sweep the matter aside because it affects relatively few people.
    Mr. Allen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not conclude his remarks without making some reference to his party's view on the comments made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), particularly given the record of some of his colleagues in Liberal-controlled Tower Hamlets. It may be useful to have something on the record from the hon. Gentleman's party.
    Mr. Maclennan: I am not one to rush into using consideration of detailed amendments concerning the rights of children to seek asylum to make a general statement about race relations and the comments of a Conservative Member. However, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman in question to express my views in no uncertain terms and I shall be happy to provide the hon. Member for Nottingham, North with a copy of that letter. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find that my views are no less robust than his own. However, at this stage I prefer to confine my remarks to the subject of children seeking asylum.
    As the Minister knows, I am particularly interested in that aspect and I take this opportunity to thank him for the way in which he undertook in Committee to consider the proposal for the statutory provision of a panel along the lines followed by Lord Brightman in another place.
    I also thank him for the courteous and thoughtful way in which he listened to the arguments that I deployed when I went to see him with the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). From what he said on that occasion and earlier this afternoon, I have no doubt that he has put his mind
    It is unfortunate that we are legislating for asylum in this manner. At the very last gasp of the Bill, the Government have announced seven administrative steps to ameliorate consideration of the issues; seven ways in which local authorities are reminded of their responsibilities and given guidance on how to handle them; seven ways in which the immigration rules are amended to take account of the handling of children's applications; and seven ways in which the formal mechanisms for handling temporary admissions by local authorities are to be handled. That kind of administrative response should have preceded the legislation, rather than coming after it. If the amendments had been in place, tried out and seen to work, it is conceivable that much of what the Government are now doing would not be necessary and that the vast amount of parliamentary time taken up by the Bill would have been saved.

    39

    Many of the problems involved in the managing of asylum seekers are of an administrative nature. At best, the Government's motive in bringing this legislation was to deal with the problem of backlog. Many believe that, given resources, new administrative priorities and the guidelines which have finally been extracted in respect of children, it would have eliminated, or greatly reduced and contained, the problem of asylum seeking—and wrongful asylum seeking—being confined as it was.
    We are at the beginning of a new Home Office regime and—I suspect—a long way away from the next general election. I hope that party political considerations will prompt the Government less in matters concerning race and immigration than they have in the past. At the beginning of this new Administration, may I urge the Minister, as I would have said to the Home Secretary if he were still here—I was glad to see him here at the beginning of the debate—to look before he leaps, not to be rushed into legislation where it is not strictly required and not to seek to change the law on immigration and race just for the sake of a cheap headline and of ensuring that the most atavistic instincts of certain sections of our community are fed by the Home Office? That is not the way to advance good race relations.
    I wish the Home Secretary well in his new job and I am glad that he came to the House for the opening of this debate; I understand that Cabinet Ministers are not usually able to sit throughout entire debates. I have known the Home Secretary for many, many years—even in his pre-legislative life as a lawyer—and I know that he takes a genuine interest in many of the matters for which he will have high political responsibility.
    The crucial issue that we will have to decide when we vote tonight is whether what the Government propose for the handling of children's applications is sufficient. The Minister knows that I have strongly argued that a statutory scheme would have benefits. First, it would make it clear that there was a duty to be discharged by members of the panel and would give such a panel a status that would assist the other bodies with statutory responsibilities for handling such matters. It is inevitable that the immigration authorities, immigration officers, local authorities and social workers will continue to handle these cases.
    I never believed that the setting up of an advisory panel to assist the children by acting as advocates should diminish the responsibilities of local authority officers and immigration officers; but the establishment of panels of experts would recognise that no local authority—or very few—could conceivably have the necessary range of linguistic expertise, or background knowledge of the circumstances which led a child to flee from a foreign country.
    4.45 pm
    I think that the Government recognise that such expertise cannot exist within a local authority. Some local authorities may have acquired this expertise—for example, those within the environs of an airport. If they have, so much the better, but it is possible that most local authorities will not have acquired such expertise and will value the help of the panels which would be set up under
    40
    the administrative arrangements that the Minister has proposed in place of the statutory arrangements approved in another place.
    Only two issues of principle on the statutory scheme make it preferable. First, it gives some stability which, inevitably, an administrative scheme of the kind that the Minister has outlined cannot give. The Minister said that we should see how it works and then judge its effectiveness. It is right that we should do that. In time, it may come to seem so clearly a part of the system that the Minister may choose some other legislative opportunity to put it on a statutory basis. That sort of development is not unknown.
    The second reason for ensuring that the scheme is on a statutory basis which still commends itself to me—and if the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) intends to press the matter to a Division, I shall support him—is the question of finance. If a statutory body is established, finance will be made available for it to discharge its statutory function. The Minister is right to say that he cannot give an undertaking about expenditure beyond the current year—we know that very well—but the best way in which to ensure that the necessary resources are forthcoming is to provide a statutory body which enjoys the backing of the full Government and which must therefore be funded. That seems to be a conclusive argument in favour of a statutory scheme.
    I am grateful to the Refugee Council and the Children's Legal Centre for the helpful role that they have played throughout our debates. I have no doubt that they, particularly the Refugee Council, will be under financial pressure at some point as a result of the legislation. I hope, therefore, that their additional responsibilities will be reflected in additional funding.
    I am glad that we have moved as far as we have down the road towards recognising the particular needs of children asylum seekers and that we are setting up a system of guidance, guardianship and advocacy, by administrative means, to take account of those needs. A modest change has been brought about by means of an immensely protracted debate, keenly fought in a number of different forums. That the battle has been at least partially won by those who are concerned about children asylum seekers is a cause for some satisfaction. If the Minister could bring himself to take that further step, I know that he would satisfy the whole House.
    Mr. Paul Boateng: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), whose sincerity in these matters is exceeded only by the length of his speeches, is naive if he believes for one moment that Conservative Members, particularly those who sit on the Treasury Bench, are motivated by anything other than party political considerations when they deal with asylum and immigration policy.
    This squalid little Bill, the Lords amendments to which we are considering this afternoon, was born out of party political considerations. It is being considered at a time when party political considerations have precluded Conservative Members, particularly those who sit on the Treasury Bench and upon whom the responsibility lies, from condemning roundly the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for the appalling speech that he made only a few days ago. That speech, which received so much publicity, was disreputable and it did neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party any credit. It has poisoned the atmosphere of race relations in this country.

    41
    When one looks at the climate into which the children with whom these amendments are concerned will be arriving and at the climate into which they will be required to go when they attend school and attempt to lead some semblance of a normal life, after the trauma that led to their flight to this country in the first place, one realises that that trauma can only be increased by the hon. Gentleman's speech.
    It is a pity that the hon. Member for Davyhulme did not have the courtesy to be in his place this afternoon. He is only too well aware of the concern that hon. Members in all parts of the House feel about his utterances. He must be only too well aware of the fact that his speech will be referred to during the debate, Therefore, it is all the more reprehensible that he has not had the guts to come along and hear what is said.
    Equally reprehensible is the Minister's silence. I know that he abhors, as strongly as any Opposition Member, the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Davyhulme. I do not for one moment call into question the Minister's sincerity and integrity in promoting good race relations. Therefore, I hope that he will come to the Dispatch Box soon and condemn his hon. Friend's speech. Both I and other Opposition Members—and, I know, Conservative Members—have been inundated with correspondence from constituents, particularly constituents from the Asian community who have been shocked, affronted and deeply hurt and wounded by the hon. Gentleman's speech and the Government's reticence in condemning it.
    Mr. Madden: Although I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said, does he agree that the deafening silence of the Prime Minister, following the repugnant remarks of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), was deeply worrying? If the Prime Minister was truly shocked by what the hon. Gentleman said, would not a practical demonstration of that repugnance have been for the Conservative party to withdraw the Whip from the hon. Member for Davyhulme?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) continues his speech, may I remind him and the House that we are dealing with specific Lords amendments? This is neither the time nor the place to go into other matters. I am sure that there will be ample opportunities for those matters to be raised properly.
    Mr. Boateng: I am sure that that is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward tomorrow afternoon at Prime Minister's Question Time to the Prime Minister taking the opportunity to denounce the hon. Member for Davyhulme—unless, of course, the Prime Minister is so preoccupied with his own parlous position that, once again, it slips his mind.
    The amendments are welcome. I refer not only to the Lords amendments but to those that stand in the names of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. They are welcome, because they highlight the plight of children and young people as refugees, and also the plight of those caught up in the crisis in Yugoslavia.
    My constituency experience, however, is that of unaccompanied child refugees from Somalia and the Horn of Africa. The Minister knows, because there has been correspondence between myself and his Department, as well as with the Department of the Environment on the issue, that we have in our schools the highest ratio of
    42
    children and young people from Somalia, whose very real needs have been met only as a result of considerable sacrifice and selflessness on the part of teachers, social workers and others in the London borough of Brent.
    They have worked until now—it is still the case, although I am glad to hear that it will shortly be remedied —without any additional resources from central Government. It is therefore welcome that some resources, at any rate, are to be made available. One is anxious that they should come on tap as quickly as possible. We look forward to hearing from the Minister that this new money —and we want a guarantee that it will be new money—will be provided quickly and will be focused on the urgent needs of those young refugees.
    The importance of the Lords amendment is that it seeks to put on a statutory basis that which the Government now say they are prepared to do, belatedly and under pressure, on a voluntary basis. It is important that it should be put on a statutory basis. It provides the clearest indication of the Government's commitment to this issue. It promises continuity and the stability of provision. It also ensures that the Government put their money where their mouth is. Without the provision of resources, it is difficult to believe that the Government's commitment will be worth the paper upon which it is written.
    We are worried about how the voluntary scheme is to be established, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assist us. Will the Children's Legal Centre be fully involved and consulted? Will the British Refugee Council and other bodies working with children have additional resources to enable them better to do their job? What will be the mechanism for liaison between social services and those with specific responsibilities under the voluntary scheme?
    5 Pm
    My borough is not alone in finding that, after 6 pm, the police are the social services because of the constraint on local authority budgets. Refugees arrive at all times of the day and night. Those of us who represent boroughs adjacent to the main ports of entry know that there can be calls on the local authority social services departments literally at any time. Before we accept the Government's assurances, we want to hear more about how the voluntary scheme will work in practice.
    This country's commitment under international law and under article 3 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is clear. It is to ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration and that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative or legislative bodies, those best interests are given the primacy of consideration that is their due. What better way to ensure that than by statute? It is not for nothing that the House of Lords passed the amendment. It recognised that the only way to ensure that the child's interests are paramount is to give the notion statutory backing.
    We have a specific responsibility to children and young people. They are the most vulnerable sector of the refugee community. Their young lives are all too often shaped, twisted and distorted in ways that we can barely begin to imagine by the horror of their experiences in the countries from which they flee and by the trauma of their journey. We must ensure that on their arrival on these shores—they will already have had to overcome enormous barriers to

    43
    get here—they find a genuine sanctuary and refuge and that, for a while at least, they have at their disposal someone with a statutory duty to relate to them as a friend.
    It is not without significance that amendment No. 2 deals, which deals with the appointment of functions of the advisory panel, refers specifically to the notion of "befriending" a young person. I have never seen that word used in any statutory provision but, when we are talking about children who have undergone such experiences, it is right to ensure that they have a statutory right to have someone as their friend who will stand up for them against what can often be a hostile, oppressive and alien bureaucracy. It is right that the friend should have the backing of statute. When we give the House the opportunity to vote on the amendment, I hope that hon. Members will uphold it.
    Mrs. Barbara Roche: It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I wish to associate myself with his remarks about the great anxiety caused to his constituents by the comments of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). I know from my own experience in the past few days that the hon. Gentleman's remarks caused tremendous distress and anxiety to my constituents. The remarks were outrageous and reprehensible, and I am sad that the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Prime Minister have not properly condemned them.
    I was delighted when amendments 3 and 4 were made to the Bill in another place. Lord Brightman and Baroness Faithfull are to be congratulated on their hard work in building on our debates in Committee.
    The benchmark of a civilised society is how we treat our children. An even greater standard is the way in which we treat other people's children, those who are fleeing traumatic and dangerous situations abroad. The provision of a statutory advisory panel, giving unaccompanied children who may have suffered bereavement, torture and travel to a country that they do not understand, access to an adult to advise and support them, would be progressive and humane.
    It would help to implement the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which emphasises that the child's best interests should be the primary consideration in any dealings that the state has with the child. The same principle is embodied in the Children Act 1989, which was so warmly welcomed by all parties. Therefore, given that the Government now appear to accept the principle and the difficulties that unaccompanied children face in such circumstances, it seems odd that they cannot put the provision on a statutory basis. If we have such statutory obligations to children, why not include this proposal in the Bill?
    The advisory panel would provide support in dealing with local authority departments as well as immigration officials. It would certainly be in line with the well established practice in wardship cases of providing a guardian ad litem to young people.
    The horrific experiences that befall refugees affect children as well as adults. We have recently seen many examples from the Bosnian conflict on our television screens. Amnesty International has documented some appalling cases in which children are, in their own right, victims of persecution and torture.
    44
    They are often threatened with torture and death by people who want to extract information from their parents. They may fear for their own lives because of civil war and attacks by repressive regimes. If parents are imprisoned, dead or missing, children must flee, helped by family and friends. Sometimes they must travel for long periods under hazardous conditions before reaching the United Kingdom.
    Clearly, only exceptional circumstances would force children to undertake such dangerous and frightening journeys alone. What is the response when unaccompanied children manage to make that dangerous voyage? What faces them when they reach our country? When they come to Britain, they find that there is no special provision for them. Immigration officers, untrained in questioning children, interview them before deciding whether to grant them temporary admission. That interview is crucial to the determination of the child's case. If the child gets over that hurdle and is then given temporary admission, she or he is referred to a local authority which may not know anything about the child's refugee-related needs.
    The British Refugee Council recently carried out a survey of the provision made by 17 local authorities, 16 of them London boroughs. It revealed that at least 25 children were held in detention by the immigration service on arrival and that 70 children had to wait up to three months before a local authority responded to their needs. At least 50 children were moved more than three times in their first three months in this country. That would be traumatic enough for any child, but for children who have encountered such dangers and who have had such experiences, how much more difficult and psychologically damaging must this trauma be?
    Many children had no access to support from people of their own culture and language. It is not surprising that local authorities, however good their intentions, do not cope as well as they might with those children. Finding the necessary resources and expertise is yet another claim on overstretched budgets. Most individual authorities do not have the resources to sustain the breadth of expertise necessary to deal with the small number of children from a wide range of countries, cultures and languages. They need an advocate who would articulate their needs to ensure that they are met.
    There are many examples of what happens to child refugees. The Refugee Council reported that a l5-year-old African refugee child formerly at a dedicated voluntary children's home was kept in Harmondsworth detention centre for a week following his arrival. He had no access to an interpreter for several days, and did not know where he was or why he was being kept there.
    A boy of 15 from Zaire, who fled from civil war when his parents died, sought asylum at the port of entry. Immigration passed him on to the local authority social services department, which accommodated him overnight and referred him the next day to a refugee project as being a 16-year-old and therefore not in need. The project found him a place in a refugee hostel where he insisted—and he was believed—that he was 15. The local authority in the end acknowledged its wrong assessment and took him back. Those are just a couple of examples of the difficult situations that such children can face.
    Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan), I offer my thanks to the Children's

    45
    Legal Centre, Save the Children and the British Refugee Council for the good advice that we have received during the passage of the Bill.
    What is the experience elsewhere? The experience of other European countries is instructive. The children's legal centre recently introduced a report entitled "Children or Refugees? A survey of west European policies on unaccompanied refugee children". It shows that, in France, each section of the body that determines refugee status has a person mandated to assess children's applications. In Belgium, children's applications are given priority; in Denmark, an assessor is nominated. In Sweden, the world leader in the treatment of children, immigration officers who conduct asylum interviews have received special training in interviewing children.
    I noted the Minister's opening remarks about some of the administrative changes that he now proposes to introduce. I welcome them. They are long overdue, and it is a shame that we had to wait until the other place debated the issue and introduced the new clauses before the Minister proposed the changes.
    If the Minister has such confidence in the proposals, and if they meet with the approval of all parties, why not write them on the face of the Bill? If that is not done, the suspicion must be that they will be temporary and that, when the year runs out or when there are funding difficulties, they will disappear. Can we have some directness on the matter? We press the Minister further about his intentions.
    We are not talking about a great number of children. In 1992, 185 unaccompanied child asylum seekers applied for asylum at their point of entry. The provision is necessary for a small number of children in exceptional circumstances, such as those in 1990 during the fighting in Eritrea. The panel of advocates would have only a small cost implication, and the value to the children would far outweigh any cost.
    Article 20 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child provides:
    "a child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the state".
    After all those children have been through, they surely deserve no less.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Corbyn: I was a member of the Committees on both the Asylum Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. We twice tried to introduce the amendment that was subsequently carried in the Lords. It is before us today, and the Government are trying to wriggle out of it.
    Mr. Charles Wardle indicated dissent.
    Mr. Corbyn: The Minister indicates that he is not trying to wriggle out of it. If he is not, I am not entirely certain what his speech was about. Was he not trying to wriggle out of a statutory requirement to look after unaccompanied children when they seek asylum in this country?
    The whole principle behind the demands that we made in both Committees was that unaccompanied children deserve special treatment, because they are refugees, because they are unaccompanied, because they are arriving in this country and because they are in danger of
    46
    falling through all the various nets that are supposed to be constructed to defend children in such a vulnerable situation.
    It is not so long ago that a number of unaccompanied children arrived in London at the airport, left the airport, having been admitted to the country—nobody gave a thought to what was going to happen to them once they walked through the immigration channels at Heathrow —and, somehow or other, landed up on church steps in my constituency. To the credit of the priests at the church, they immediately took the children in, fed them, clothed them, housed them and looked after them.
    Subsequently my local authority took responsibility for them. It did not say, "We cannot afford it. We will not do it. These are unaccompanied children who deserve our help and understanding." They were most terribly distressed children, who did not know why they had left their own country, did not understand what had happened there and did not understand a word of English. It was only with great difficulty that interpreters were found to help them. I pay tribute to all those voluntary agencies that helped.
    The point that those agencies made to me time after time was that those children deserved better than the good fortune of landing on the right church steps, at the right place and at the right time, with a good samaritan helping them out. When the lesson from that is learned, it must be that there has to be a legally appointed guardian from the point of arrival to look after those children. What do the Government say? "No, we do not need anything like that; we do not need any statutory requirement whatever".
    In Committee on the first Bill, the Minister's predecessor went as far as to question why the children were unaccompanied in the first place. I will tell him and the House why. When people are living in extreme danger —in a state of war, where they might be killed for their political, social or religious beliefs—the first consideration is the safety of their children.
    Jewish families in Germany sent their children into exile in the 1930s. They did not know what would happen to their children, but they felt that there was better hope for them outside Nazi Germany than inside it. Many of the children sent into exile were looked after, but, tragically, many more were not and died as a result.
    Tragically, children all around the world face situations similar to those faced by children in Nazi Germany. We should do better than to weasel our way out—as the Minister seeks to do—of a proposal that has been agreed by all the agencies and all those who have some understanding and experience, and return to some kind of voluntary scheme.
    The reason we are going for a non-statutory, voluntary scheme is that the Government are not prepared to pay the cost of the statutory scheme in the long run. The Government know that there may well be considerable numbers of unaccompanied children arriving in this country in the future. The Government know that, I know that, and everyone who looks at the horrors that exist in so many parts of the world knows that.
    Is the solution to close the doors on everyone seeking asylum, or is it to go for an humanitarian system of assisting unaccompanied children and giving them a place of safety and a safe haven in this country? It is to be hoped that those children can be reunited with their parents who may be able to come to this country at a later stage.

    47
    With all that is going on around the world, I would have thought that the Minister could have shown today that he does not agree with what the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said. The Minister could have stood up against the vile, xenophobic and racist nonsense spoken by the hon. Gentleman, and show a spark of humanity in respect of unaccompanied child refugees.
    I believe strongly in the issue. We debated it many times in Committee. I do not doubt that the payroll vote will be wheeled out in a few minutes' time and the Lords amendments will be defeated, and we will return to some kind of voluntary scheme. That is not satisfactory, and we shall return to the question of guaranteeing real support, real friendship and real protection for victims of the most appalling brutality and terror that exists around the world today.
    Miss Joan Lestor: In obedience to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not say much about the speech made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), except to say that the debate is being conducted at a time when xenophobia has found a voice in many parts of Europe. It is most important that we should make it absolutely clear that we will take no part in the speaking of that language.
    I want to feel that I live in a country where children who have been persecuted, who have seen their parents tortured and who have little hope in their own country receive a welcome. We should write into statute services that those children will most definitely need.
    Reference has been made to several laws and conventions that would advance and enhance the position of such children—the 1951 United Nations convention, the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, and article 22 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, so recently ratified by the United Kingdom, which states:
    "Refugee children should receive protection and humanitarian assistance in enjoying their rights under this convention."
    Our own Children Act 1990 states that the interest of children must be paramount. Does that apply only to our own children? Should not the interests of children from other countries also be paramount? In making what is, I suppose, a concession to the tremendous force of the arguments used in the other place, the Minister is making a nod in the direction of that concept, without having the courage to write such a provision into statute.
    When I was Front-Bench spokesman with responsibility for children, I went to Hillingdon and talked to people dealing with refugees coming in. I have met child refugees from all parts of the world. I have always been amazed and appalled that, when it comes to child refugees, other European countries can get it right but we cannot. Other European countries have made enormous strides in establishing proper procedures for dealing with child refugees. We are once again bottom of the league, while other countries have statutory procedures giving children an advocate and a friend to whom they can refer for advice.
    I do not know whether the Minister has met many child refugees. Does he know what they have been through and what they have suffered? Does he know of their great fear of coming to a country where they do not know the
    48
    language? Many of them do not know what has happened to their parents, although they know that they may well be dead or that they are persecuted. Many parents put their children on a plane with someone merely to get them out of the country. Faced with the situation with which those parents are faced, we would all make such arrangements.
    Such children have suffered enormously. They are traumatised and they need all the help that we can give them. But faced with those circumstances, what do we do? Immigration officers have the first bite. They are not trained to deal with child refugees. They have never received any training to help them to cope with children, but they decide whether children can be admitted and considered as applicants for asylum. I do not know how many children have been refused entry to this country.
    When we do allow children in, we fingerprint them and treat them as criminals. When we have asked what is the justification for fingerprinting adult asylum seekers and seekers of refugee status, we have been told, "Fraudulent claims have been made for social security benefits." It is all in the Lords Hansard. But that does not apply to children. Before the last election, I asked specific questions about the number of child refugees who had been found guilty of fraud in relation to social security benefits. I was told that the answer was none. That being so, what is the rationale for fingerprinting children?
    It is terribly frightening for a child to be fingerprinted. In most of the countries from which the children have come, fingerprinting is the prelude to torture and detention. Why do we have to fingerprint children? What is all that about? Surely we can look at that again.
    As a civilised country, we ought to enshrine in statute certain services as of right. It would enhance the reputation of the Government, and of the Minister in particular, if the hon. Gentleman accepted the force of the arguments that were used in the other place, which were advanced from both sides of the House. For example, Baroness Faithfull, who is experienced in all questions of social work and who chairs the children's panel that many of us attend, made a moving speech in which she repeatedly drew attention to the bewilderment that child asylum seekers feel. We want to offer them some sort of security.
    I read in today's edition of the Evening Standard that Somalian gunmen who attacked Pakistani troops used women and children as human shields to prevent the troops who were guarding a United Nations peacekeeping force at a feeding centre in Mogadishu from doing their job. Just imagine what children from such troubled parts of the world who end up here have been through.
    There are not many of us left in the House who were evacuees within this country—and some went abroad—during the last war. We went only a few miles out of London and away from our homes—to escape the bombing and because our parents feared that this country would be invaded and wanted to make sure that we were safe.
    Dr. John Reid: My hon. Friend is well known for her interest in children, and I had the honour to work with her for a while. Let me reinforce what she says about the trauma that such children undergo. Last week, I was in Azerbaijan and visited a number of refugee camps in which there were a considerable number of children. Those refugees are Azeris in Azerbaijan; they are in their own country and are being protected; they are not

    49
    starving. Yet the trauma among them is most evident. It must be a hundred times worse for a child to be a refugee in a strange country. I can verify absolutely from my own experience what my hon. Friend has said.
    Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend has made my point for me. I was about to say that, as evacuees, we were in our own country and spoke the same language, albeit, perhaps, in different dialects. We knew a little of what was happening. We knew that our parents were alive, although we thought that they might be killed. The trauma will stay with those of us experienced evacuation as very small children for the rest of our lives. It was a terrifying experience. Imagine how much worse it is for children who come to a strange country whose language they do not speak, when they know that their parents are dead or are being tortured.
    We are a civilised nation and are not poor—despite all the Government's efforts to make us into a poor country —yet we apparently cannot find the money to establish a statutory advice service for those children so that they can be assured of some service and can have some guarantee of protection.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: When the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) refers to fingerprinting, I hope that she appreciates that many child asylum seekers, like other asylum seekers, apply for asylum without any means of identification. They have no documents. First and foremost, the process of fingerprinting is meant to establish an unshakeable identification. I respect the hon. Lady's work with children, and I entirely understand what she and other hon. Members have said in this debate about the traumatised state of many children who apply for asylum. However, as I explained earlier, we already have the provisions of the Children Act 1989.
    5.30 pm
    The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said that no account was taken of children in immigration law. However, he misses the point. Immigration law and the Geneva convention on refugees do not distinguish between applicants on the basis of age. So far as immigration is concerned, the same considerations apply. In all other respects with regard to children, the Children Act 1989 covers the welfare responsibilities as I have explained.
    The hon. Member for Nottingham, North began in his usual churlish fashion with some less than welcoming remarks about my right hon. and learned Friend the new Home Secretary. To begin with, he found it a little difficult to remain in order in terms of this debate.
    I want to respond to some of the remarks made about my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Those remarks, so far as I can see, have little to do with the Lords amendments that we are considering. If hon. Members listened to the radio or watched television last week, I hope that they will be aware of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I had to say about the matter.
    I made it absolutely clear then, and repeat now, that I deplore any remarks which give rise to ethnic tensions. I took issue in the media last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme on two counts. The first was his assessment of the size and proportion of the ethnic population as a proportion of the entire population, and the second was his remarks about primary immigration.
    50
    Primary immigration ended years ago in this country. I will not enlarge upon that, because, if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would rule that I was straying out of order.
    A constructive and healthy debate about immigration should be conducted regularly in the media and in this House.
    Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wardle: No, I will not expand upon that.
    The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also referred to Bosnia. Again, he was straying a little out of order. He referred to the 1,000 ex-detainees and their dependants. He knows full well that the Government depend on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Red Cross for the number of people who have arrived so far.
    In an intervention, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)—I do not like to think of a debate of this kind in which the hon. Member for Bradford, West does not intervene— referred to family reunion.
    I should make it absolutely clear, and I hope not to stray too far out of order as this point related to children, that, in respect of the 1,000 Bosnian ex-detainees, some of whom have already arrived, and their dependants, reunion with their families is being carried out simultaneously where that is possible. For those ex-detainees who arrive outside the normal immigration rules and where someone is granted asylum refugee status, family reunion can follow straight away. Where someone is granted exceptional leave to remain, there is a four-year waiting period. If I were to dwell on that point, no doubt you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Madden: For the accuracy of the record, will the Minister confirm what he told me in his letter that I received today: that, to date, only 235 ex-detainees and only 387 dependants have been received in the United Kingdom? We are a very long way from the figure of 4,000 announced by the former Home Secretary last November.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed a certain latitude, but I am not prepared to allow any more. The Minister, just like any other hon. Member, must now Consider the amendments.
    Mr. Wardle: I shall do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    I welcome the advice offered by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in Committee and subsequently in the discussions that he and I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) about a children's advisory panel. I know of the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm about the subject, and I am grateful for his good wishes to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    However, perhaps the only difference on the matter between the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and me is whether there should be statutory responsibility for the panel. For the reasons that I made as clear as possible, it would be confusing to have statutory responsibility, because there are already clear-cut statutory responsibilities laid on local authority social services departments in that area.
    The practical administrative measure which will deliver precisely the same service as the friend and adviser which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has

    51
    advocated throughout, and which Lord Brightman has advocated, will be delivered by the arrangements which are now in place.
    Mr. Corbyn: If there is a clear statutory responsibility on local authority social services departments in respect of unaccompanied children, what is the Minister's Department prepared to do to reimburse them for the considerable costs of looking after deeply traumatised children for many years? Such children require a great deal of support, help and counselling.
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I alluded to that earlier. Precisely how the extra funds announced by the Home Secretary on 3 February will be distributed is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) volunteered that there were party political considerations afoot. I fear that he has not had an opportunity to read our debates in Committee, where he will have learnt of administrative measures designed to improve the service that is being offered. That is of fundamental importance.
    I seem to recall that the hon. Member for Brent, South spoke briefly on Second Reading and asked about legal aid and funding for such advice. He also asked about the arrangements to which I referred earlier. He was concerned for the way in which the Refugee Council and others might operate.
    As I said earlier, that is a matter for the Refugee Council which will organise and administer the scheme itself. It has specific Home Office funding for that purpose. The Refugee Council is well placed to work with other voluntary organisations which are active in the area. However, it will be for the Refugee Council to decide whom to consult and when.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Minister confirm that, although the Refugee Council has agreed to carry out that work, its stated preference was for a statutory agency?
    Mr. Wardle: Mr. Dubs of the Refugee Council has made that point clear. As the House will be aware, I disagree with that point of view. I am sure that we will find that the Refugee Council will go to work with a will and will make the new panel of advisors work very well. We will be discussing with the Department of Health how best to draw the attention of local authorities to the new arrangements—probably through an addition to the new guidance that I mentioned earlier, which is in preparation.

    The hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) outlined a number of case histories and described arrangements that were in place in other countries. I think that their suspicions are overdone. We are dealing with the treatment of child asylum seekers. This is not a matter of asylum procedures as such. It relates to the treatment of those children. I am absolutely confident that the new administrative measures in place—the new funding for the scheme that will be run by the Refugee Council—will serve the cause of child asylum seekers in this country suitably and well.
    For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendments.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 226.

    Division No. 286]

    [5.40 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Evennett, David

    Amess, David

    Faber, David

    Ancram, Michael

    Fabricant, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Ashby, David

    Forth, Eric

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Freeman, Roger

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    French, Douglas

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Fry, Peter

    Baldry, Tony

    Gale, Roger

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Gallie, Phil

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bates, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Batiste, Spencer

    Garnier, Edward

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gill, Christopher

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bitten, Rt Hon John

    Gorst, John

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Booth, Hartley

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Boswell, Tim

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Hague, William

    Bowden, Andrew

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Bowis, John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Brazier, Julian

    Hannam, Sir John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Harris, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hawkins, Nick

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hayes, Jerry

    Burns, Simon

    Heald, Oliver

    Burt, Alistair

    Hendry, Charles

    Butler, Peter

    Hicks, Robert

    Butterfill, John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Cash, William

    Horam, John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clappison, James

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

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Congdon, David

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunter, Andrew

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Jack, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Couchman, James

    Jessel, Toby

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

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Key, Robert

    Day, Stephen

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dicks, Terry

    Knapman, Roger

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Dover, Den

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

    Duncan, Alan

    Knox, David

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Dunn, Bob

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Dykes, Hugh

    Legg, Barry

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    53

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lidington, David

    Sackville, Tom

    Lightbown, David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lord, Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Luff, Peter

    Sims, Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    MacKay, Andrew

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Maclean, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Soames, Nicholas

    Madel, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Malone, Gerald

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mans, Keith

    Spring, Richard

    Marland, Paul

    Sproat, Iain

    Marlow, Tony

    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

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Streeter, Gary

    Merchant, Piers

    Sweeney, Walter

    Milligan, Stephen

    Sykes, John

    Mills, Iain

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Needham, Richard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

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

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tracey, Richard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Tredinnick, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Trend, Michael

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Norris, Steve

    Viggers, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Ottaway, Richard

    Walden, George

    Page, Richard

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Paice, James

    Waller, Gary

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Ward, John

    Pawsey, James

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waterson, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Watts, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wells, Bowen

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Whitney, Ray

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Redwood, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Richards, Rod

    Willetts, David

    Riddick, Graham

    Wilshire, David

    Rifkind, Rt Hon, Malcolm

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Yeo, Tim

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Mr. Irvine Patrick and

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Mr. Timothy Wood.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bell, Stuart

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ainger, Nick

    Benton, Joe

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Allen, Graham

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Alton, David

    Betts, Clive

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Blair, Tony

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Boateng, Paul

    Ashton, Joe

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Austin-Walker, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Barnes, Harry

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Bayley, Hugh

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

    54

    Burden, Richard

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Caborn, Richard

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hutton, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Illsley, Eric

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Jamieson, David

    Canavan, Dennis

    Janner, Greville

    Cann, Jamie

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Clapham, Michael

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Clelland, David

    Keen, Alan

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Coffey, Ann

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Connarty, Michael

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Corbett, Robin

    Leighton, Ron

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Lewis, Terry

    Cousins, Jim

    Livingstone, Ken

    Cox, Tom

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cryer, Bob

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    McAllion, John

    Dafis, Cynog

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Darling, Alistair

    Macdonald, Calum

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    McFall, John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    McKelvey, William

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

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

    McLeish, Henry

    Denham, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Dewar, Donald

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dixon, Don

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dobson, Frank

    Madden, Max

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Mahon, Alice

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Mandelson, Peter

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Eastham, Ken

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Enright, Derek

    Martlew, Eric

    Etherington, Bill

    Meacher, Michael

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Meale, Alan

    Fatchett, Derek

    Michael, Alun

    Faulds, Andrew

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Fisher, Mark

    Milburn, Alan

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Miller, Andrew

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Foulkes, George

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fraser, John

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Gapes, Mike

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Garrett, John

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    George, Bruce

    Mudie, George

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mullin, Chris

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Murphy, Paul

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Godsiff, Roger

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    O'Hara, Edward

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Olner, William

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Grocott, Bruce

    Patchett, Terry

    Gunnell, John

    Pendry, Tom

    Hall, Mike

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hanson, David

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hardy, Peter

    Pope, Greg

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Heppell, John

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Prescott, John

    Hoey, Kate

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Home Robertson, John

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hood, Jimmy

    Radice, Giles

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Randall, Stuart

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Redmond, Martin

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Reid, Dr John

    Hoyle, Doug

    Rendel, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    55

    Rogers, Allan

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Rooney, Terry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Dennis

    Rowlands, Ted

    Vaz, Keith

    Ruddock, Joan

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Walley, Joan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wareing, Robert N

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Watson, Mike

    Short, Clare

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

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

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

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

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Worthington, Tony

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wray, Jimmy

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Stevenson, George

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Straw, Jack

    Mr. John Spellar and

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.

    Clause 3

      FINGERPRINTING
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 21, leave out ("an "authorised person", that is to say").
      Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
      Mr. Wardle: The amendments to clause 3(2) are intended to make it clear that a child under 16 should be fingerprinted only in the presence of a person who is independent of the immigration authorities or the police and whose role it is to look after the interests of the child. The amendments provide for that individual to be the child's parent or guardian or a person who, for the time being, takes responsibility for that child. That would cover, for example, a local authority social worker, the child's legal representative, a relation other than a parent or guardian or a worker with a voluntary agency. The amendments make it clear that that person cannot be an immigration officer, another member of the Home Office or a police or prison officer.
      I believe that the amendments meet the principal concern expressed in Committee in both Houses that the adult present should be seen to be independent of the authorities and responsible for looking after the child's interests.
      Mr. Watson: The clause that provides for the fingerprinting of asylum seekers is one of the most objectionable in what Opposition Members consider to be a squalid Bill. It remains squalid despite the amendments that have been made in another place. It was of some consolation, but not much, that the clause was amended in two respects during its consideration in another place.
      I was interested to note the clarification that the Minister offered about who might act as the adviser or friend to children who are asylum seekers. Although the Opposition welcome that clarification and the modest improvements that the amendments have made to the Bill, we do so not in the belief that they make the Bill acceptable, but that they represent the fulfilment of the
      56
      commitments argued for and given by the Minister in Committee. For that reason, we will not oppose the amendments, but that should not be taken as signifying that we are satisfied with the content of the clause. That is far from the truth.
      Throughout the Bill's progress, the Opposition's objections have centred on the fact that the very act of being fingerprinted criminalises asylum seekers. We have consistently argued in Committee, and in the House today, against that practice.
      It is a long-established principle, certainly in Britain, that the only people who can be required to have their fingerprints taken are those who have been charged with a criminal offence. When people hear that someone is to be fingerprinted, it is certainly their perception that that person has committed a criminal offence. The fingerprinting of asylum seekers is objectionable not only for adults, but for children. That is why we have consistently argued strongly for the protection that is offered under the amendments.
      I am not aware that even the Government have suggested that an application for asylum should be regarded as a criminal offence. The much maligned—and rightly so—hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) would be happy to argue for that, however, should the Government decide to change their policy.
      I am not seeking to make cheap points about the recent comments of that rather dishonourable Member. At this stage, he is an easy target, but we are entitled to know where he is today. Why has he failed to attend this debate so that he can discuss an issue that is, apparently, of great importance to him? If the matter is really so important to the hon. Gentleman, why is he not present? We must question his motives—he must have made the speech for his own gain. I tend to be a regular participant in such debates and I have not seen the hon. Gentleman participating, which makes his remarks all the more reprehensible.
      6 pm
      In Committee, my hon. Friends and I failed to convince the Under-Secretary of my objections to criminalising those who are fingerprinted, including children. Legislation already exists—sections 27 and 61 of the Police -and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971—to deal with cases in which it is believed that an asylum seeker may have committed a criminal offence. I am aware that we have covered that ground before, but it is important because all the arguments that we have advanced about the effect on adults of compulsory fingerprinting are multiplied several times in respect of children.
      To fingerprint all asylum seekers, including children, makes an assumption of guilt. It assumes that everyone arrives at our shores with an ulterior motive—travelling under an alias, intent on making a bogus application and fraudulently claiming benefit. The underlying assumption is that no one is to be trusted and that, until they can prove their innocence, all asylum seekers are to be assumed guilty, at least in theory. Such a policy stands on its head what we have come to know as British justice—that one is innocent until proved guilty.
      The Government have singularly failed to establish a convincing case for the need for blanket fingerprinting. We threw numbers at them in Committee and the Under-Secretary gave me some illuminating figures. He

      57
      said that the total number of cases being investigated then —November last year—was 1,600; 11 had led to convictions, 16 were being prosecuted and 170 suspected multi-applicants had been served with illegal entry papers. Those figures are small, and become comparatively smaller when placed against the total number of 24,000 asylum applications received in this country last year. The Government cannot use the scale of the problem to substantiate their argument for the need for blanket fingerprinting. If that is true in general, it is even more valid in terms of children.
      Members of the Committee were given much information by a number of organisations which serviced us effectively. One of the most illuminating pieces of information came from the Children's Society. It recently produced a document called "Nowhere to Go", which quotes from interviews with families from Somalia and Eritrea who have sought asylum in this country. I shall read out one moving comment made by the asylum seekers. I shall quote verbatim, which will account for the grammar.
      In a description of the experience of being fingerprinted on arrival and its effects, the interviewees said:
      "This is very disgraceful. Back home if you are a criminal then you put your fingerprint. But asylum seekers when we put our fingerprints on the paper and explain to the children we are putting the fingerprint. After some time when there is a picture on the television it is going to give the impression to the children…'My Mum she is wrong or my family are wrong. What did they do? It is something wrong'. So it's going to affect in terms of the mentality of the children. Because it shows on the television that if you do a crime you put your fingerprint and the children because of lack of knowledge of asylum seekers, they will think 'My father or my mum they are thieves'."
      Those are the comments of people who have arrived in this country within the past year. I could give many more examples, but I do not have time to do so. The example that I have given underlines the way in which the people involved feel criminalised. Whether or not the Under-Secretary and his colleagues believe that the policy has a criminalising effect, those who are subjected to it, including children, believe that it does.
      The way that fingerprinting affects children is the most serious aspect of the issue. It is a step further than the previous Bill on asylum was prepared to go, and it is certainly a step too far. In Committee, we charged the Under-Secretary with advocating a policy that would place the Government and the country in contravention of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
      Article 37(a) states that no child shall be subjected to
      "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."
      If children are subjected to forced fingerprinting when they have just arrived in a strange country, probably do not speak the language and have suffered the traumas of which we heard in detail earlier, that certainly amounts to degrading treatment. It might also be termed cruel and/or inhuman treatment depending on the state in which the child arrived in Britain—that would be determined according to the individual circumstances. The policy would contravene that convention, to which the Government, on behalf of the people of this country, are a signatory. They have a duty to uphold all its articles.
      The right of a child to be accompanied while being fingerprinted is important, which is why we argued for it. But why should that provision be limited to children under 16? The answer is not clear, particularly as elsewhere, such as in clause 5(5)(a), the Bill refers to children as those
      58
      under 18. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain why 16 should be the age to apply to fingerprinting but 18 should be the age in relation to housing and other matters. It is not clear why that anomaly exists—it may he a drafting error, or there may be specific reasons. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will enlighten us.
      It is not clear why any limits are set. In Committee, the Under-Secretary argued and, in another place, Earl Ferrers said on behalf of the Government that one reason why they were not prepared to accept any Opposition amendments about setting an age limit of 16, 14, 12, 10 or whatever was that one could never be sure of a child's age. If that is so—I do not accept that it is—why set an age limit of 16 for fingerprinting and an age limit of 18 for housing and other matters? If there are insuperable difficulties in ascertaining a person's age, we should be consistent and not set an age limit. I do not believe that it is impossible to ascertain someone's age, but my hon. Friends and I believe that fingerprinting people under the age of 18 is inappropriate and could be regarded as degrading and inhumane.
      Section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 states that a child under 10 cannot be presumed guilty of any offence, so no proceedings can be brought. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act lays down rules for fingerprinting children. Therefore, there are double standards on both counts—children under 10 cannot be charged with any criminal offence, yet, under the fingerprinting provisions, they are to be treated as if they were criminals. There are certain rules in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and different ones in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
      Double standards are always unacceptable. To introduce double standards—one for British citizens and one for citizens of other countries—is entirely unacceptable and inimical to the legislation that we should pass. The distinction is unacceptable under any circumstances and one of which the Government should be ashamed. Were it possible to shame or embarrass the Government into changing direction, that would have happened long ago, in respect of other legislation, not just the Bill.
      I feel that the efforts that I and others of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) have made during the Bill's passage have highlighted to the Government the Bill's shortcomings and its pernicious nature. Its insidious denial of human rights and its inevitable criminalising effect on adults and children are not offset by the inclusion of the amendments.
      The Bill has been opposed root and branch from start to finish. It has consistently been seen by Opposition Members as seeking simply to restrict the number of people coming into this country without any understanding of the position in which they find themselves. We have opposed it, and it does the Government no credit. Our opposition to the Bill as a whole is in no way reduced by the fact that we welcome the amendments.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) has eloquently described the background to the amendments. I simply wish to make it clear on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we regard the Government's modest concession—that children's fingerprints should be compulsorily taken only in the presence of their parents, guardians or those responsible for them when they are interviewed by

      59
      immigration officials—as an improvement. It is certainly unsatisfactory that it has taken so long to extract such a modest improvement to the Bill from the Government. I greatly regretted the fact that the Minister earlier appeared, rather insensitively, to regard compulsory fingerprinting of children as no more horrifying than when they are fingerprinted in a pleasure park at their own instigation. The two are quite different, as I am sure he will, on reflection, agree.
      This is a modestly humanising measure. The amendments reflect the fallback position that we advocated in Committee. Many of us felt that it was wrong to fingerprint children under a certain age; but, as the Government are determined to persist, I believe that the amendments will help to remove some of the more frightening aspects of this physically intrusive compulsory fingerprinting of children.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

    Clause 9

      APPEALS FROM IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 7, line 21, at end insert:
      ("( ) In section 33(4) of the 1971 Act—

      (a) for the words "in the case of an appeal to an adjudicator, the" there shall be substituted "an"; and

      (b) after the words "section 20" there shall be inserted "or section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993".").

      Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment No. 7, Lords amendment No. 8 and amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 15.
      Mr. Wardle: This group of amendments extends the new avenue of appeal created by clause 9 from asylum cases only to all final determinations by the immigration appeal tribunal. That should be generally welcomed. It means that the opportunities to seek leave to appeal on a point of law to the relevant court will be available in both asylum and other immigration cases. I should perhaps confirm that nothing in the clause removes the availability of judicial review.
      It may be helpful if I briefly explain the effect of the various amendments. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 amend subsection (1), which creates the new avenue of appeal and removes the limitation to appeals in asylum cases. Amendment No. 8 specifies the appropriate court to deal with these cases. If the appeal was originally heard by an adjudicator in Scotland, the appropriate appeal court will be the Court of Session. In all other cases it will he the Court of Appeal.
      Amendment No. 9 amends the 1971 Act so as to provide that an appeal shall continue to be treated as pending while an appeal may be or is being brought under this new provision. That will protect appellants from being required to leave the United Kingdom during that stage of the process.
      60
      As for amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 8, the appeal system that the Bill provides for asylum seekers and the appeal system which already exists under the 1971 Act for other immigration appeals already provide a two-stage appeal—first, to an adjudicator, then to the tribunal. The Bill adds a further right of appeal, with leave on a point of law, to the Court of Appeal. Lords amendment No. 8 extends that to all immigration appeals, not just asylum cases.
      Amendment (a) seeks to add one more layer to the process, by having the appeal from the determination of the tribunal go to the High Court. Cases that involve important points of law would no doubt go from there to the Court of Appeal, so we would have a four-tier system of appeals. The aim of the Bill is to provide an effective way of resolving disputed points of law arising from immigration and asylum appeals without needing to resort to judicial review. It is not a mechanism for drawing out the appeals process as long as possible. The view of the Lord Chancellor is that it is better to allow the appeal to go direct to the Court of Appeal and so to keep delays to a minimum.
      There is nothing new in providing an avenue of appeal direct from a tribunal to the Court of Appeal. In general, when a tribunal hears appeals from another body, as the immigration appeal tribunal does, the avenue of appeal is to the Court of Appeal. Examples of such tribunals are the social security commissioners, the employment appeal tribunal and the lands tribunal. An appeal usually lies to the High Court when the tribunal takes decisions at first instance.
      Amendment (b) seems to be based on the belief that the purpose of providing the new avenue of appeal is to deprive people of the chance of judicial review; not so. It is true that until now the only way of challenging a decision of the tribunal has been by way of judicial review and that it will now be open to dissatisfied appellants to seek to challenge disputed points of law by the more appropriate remedy of an application for leave to appeal to the relevant court.
      To the extent that that remedy is available, the use of judicial review to challenge tribunal determinations is likely to decrease; but when a person seeks judicial review, it is entirely up to the judges to decide whether there is an issue that comes within their jurisdiction or merits leave to move for judicial review. Nothing in the Bill removes the availability of judicial review, nor is that the Government's intention.
      Lords amendment No. 15 is an amendment to the long title of the Bill designed to reflect the amendments that have been made during the passage of the Bill. In its original form the long title states that the Bill restricts certain rights of appeal under the 1971 Act. We are now also extending the new avenue of appeal to the Court of Appeal to all determinations by the tribunal under the 1971 Act, and the new wording more accurately reflects the contents of the Bill.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. John Fraser: I am grateful to the Minister for telling us something about the amendments, and especially about judicial review. These amendments were slipped into the Bill late and with virtually no debate in another place. We therefore did not have the benefit of a detailed explanation.

      61
      Our fear is that the amendments are more far-reaching and fundamental than their description in the other place would suggest—they were described as simply an extension of the right of appeal. Our fear remains that the facility of judicial review may in practice be limited by the amendments—in short, that there is a hidden agenda.
      When the Bill left the Commons it included an appeal direct to the Court of Appeal in special ajudicator cases —that is to say, cases involving asylum. All other matters were still subject to review and appeal by way of judicial review. We were not happy with the Bill when it left here because we thought that the Court of Appeal pitched the process at the wrong level: it made appeals more extensive and complicated and it meant that cases were sent to a court that is already overworked and short of judges.
      In another place and without debate, the arrangement intended for asylum cases was extended to cover all appeals, involving business people, wives, dependants, students and so on. The amendment, which look innocuous enough, may disguise a hidden agenda and reduce the possibilities of judicial review.
      The divisional court applies two principles, among others, when it considers giving leave for judicial review. The first concerns whether an application is made within three months of the decision in question. Secondly, the divisional court tends to consider whether there is an existing right of appeal. It tends to refuse leave for judicial review when another avenue is open to someone—for instance, when a case comes before an adjudicator and there is a possibility of appealing to the immigration appeal tribunal, or when an immigration officer has made a decision and there is an appeal to an adjudicator.
      In such cases, the divisional court tends to say that the matter is not appropriate for judicial review because other avenues are open. Even if the Government do not intend it, we are concerned that the effect of the amendments may be to cut out these avenues. Hence, to deal with a question of administrative law or impropriety, someone will have to canvass the issues before an adjudicator or the immigration appeal tribunal, but will be able to question them only when they get to the Court of Appeal
      I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have one question for the Minister which I shall preface with a preamble. The Bill incorporates the United Nations convention on the status of refugees, and the Government are a signatory to the European convention on human rights. In a new development, the European convention is expressly recited and adhered to in the Maastricht treaty, which the Government shortly propose to sign. My question is important whether appeals go to the Court of Appeal or to judicial review. Do the Government intend our courts to take direct cognisance of the European convention on human rights in deciding the validity of immigration rules, immigration appeal rules and the procedures before immigration appeal authorities?
      Secondly, are the Government prepared to have ministerial decisions tested against the human rights criteria? The Government signed the human rights convention and are about to sign another treaty which expressly incorporates the European convention on human rights. Are they prepared to allow our domestic courts, whether the Court of Appeal or a judicial review body, to test what Ministers do and to test immigration rules and appeal rules against those criteria? If they are
      62
      prepared to do that, how can the convention be applied if, in practice, judicial review is excluded because of the other appeal rights?
      If the Minister is absolutely satisfied that there will be no interference whatever in the capacity to opt for judicial review at any stage of the proceedings, I shall be happy to agree to the amendments. However, if there is any risk in practice, whether or not it is a matter of law, or judicial review being curtailed, we would feel unhappy about the amendments.
      Mr. Charles Wardle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no hidden agenda. The fact that the European convention on human rights is mentioned in the Maastricht treaty will have no relevance to decisions by British courts on the matters that the hon. Gentleman outlined.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 15 agreed to.

    Clause 10

      VISITORS, SHORT-TERM AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AND THEIR DEPENDANTS
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 7, line 35, at end insert:
      ("(3AA) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person, not being an officer of his, to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where there is, by virtue of subsection (3A) above, no right of appeal; and the person so appointed shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament."").—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out from "appoint" to "monitor" in line 3 and insert,
      "the Commission for Racial Equality (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission")".
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss amendments (b) to (g) to the Lords amendment, plus Government amendment (j) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendment No. 11.
      Mr. Allen: The Conservatives are in a terrible mess and that would normally give some pleasure to the Opposition. However, when the Conservatives make a mess they are not the people who suffer, but people outside. When they are incompetent on the economy, my constituents lose jobs or businesses, and when the Government stupidly introduce a daft experiment to pay pensions into bank accounts, it is pensioners who become isolated while postmasters go bust.
      When the Home Secretary needed to impress his Back Benchers, he bolted an anti-immigration clause on to what is essentially an asylum Bill. The relatives and friends of black and Asian British people will thus find that, virtually alone in our legal system, they will be denied the right to appeal against the wrongful denial of a visitor's visa. Last year, 3,845 such wrongful decisions were overturned because people had the right to appeal. That is the only reason for those decisions being changed. It was not because of any magnanimity by the Minister or the Home Secretary. The right of appeal has been abolished, and if those 3,845 people are wrongfully denied right of access to

      63
      this country, they will have no redress. By abolishing the right of appeal the Government are acquiescing to the continuation of wrongful decisions.
      The Government need to play to several audiences and the amendments and proceedings in the Lords and elsewhere are an elaborate pantomime to try to convince the ethnic minority British that the proposals to abolish the right of appeal will not hurt them. A package of transparent concessions was offered in Committee, but it was laughed out of court. It was tragic and almost amusing to watch the Minister as he pretended to be dragged into making concessions to his Back Benchers, most of whom spent their time in Committee studying their correspondence and other papers. Suddenly they sprang to life to gain marvellous concessions which nobody believes have any substance.
      Having failed to carry the day with those, the Government are now offering monitoring in place of a right of appeal. But not each case or each refusal of a visa will be monitored, nor can monitoring be initiated by someone who has been denied a visa. A minute and random sample will be monitored, the exercise will be unknown to the applicant and there will be no possible redress for errors. I hope that no one in any minority community in Great Britain will be gullible enough to be bought off by such flimsy and obvious manoeuvring. When the Tory begging bowl is passed around in the Asian business community, I hope that it will be greeted with the question, "How did you vote about the right of appeal being abolished for visitors?"
      The Government have attempted to wangle their way out of the problem by promoting what they would term a friendly amendment in the Lords. It is worth considering why the amendment was proposed. The Government argued that there is an overwhelming need to end the appeal system, which we have had for 21 years and under which people have applied for visitor or student visas. In Committee, the Minister claimed that clause 12, which abolishes the right of appeal for those refused entry clearance as visitors, students intending to study for less than six months, proposed students and their dependants, is necessary to prevent the immigration appeal system from getting clogged up and thus preventing genuine appeal cases from being heard. The Opposition have never accepted that argument and its policy implications.
      6.30 pm
      Lords amendment No. 10 proposes that the Secretary of State shall appoint an individual to oversee and review
      "in such a manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where there is … no right of appeal".
      Furthermore, the appointed person
      "shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament."
      I have a number of criticisms of the role, responsibilities and powers of the appointed person. The proposal is a weak attempt by the Government to cover up the injustice that they will serve on many people in the United Kingdom and their relatives abroad by abolishing the right of appeal.
      Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend may or may not know that for some time I represented
      64
      appellants almost on a daily basis. I believe that I was the person involved in the very first appeal, which was heard in July 1970, so our system has been in existence for almost 23 years.
      What is wrong is not merely that the right of appeal is being abolished. As my hon. Friend said, that right allowed the tribunal to find that the decisions taken by adjudicators in a number of cases were wrong. Is he aware that, when the entry clearance officer is deciding whether to accept or reject an application, he will bear in mind the fact that he will have to justify the decision if an appeal is lodged? He will have to write an explanatory statement, which will go before an adjudicator in the event of an appeal.
      Once the right of appeal is removed, the entry clearance officer will have no fear of what may happen as a result of his decision, because it will not be possible to challenge his decision in any meaningful way.
      Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend brings all his experience to bear in pinpointing that important matter. The problem is not merely that decisions in a large number of applications have been rejected and overturned on appeal, but that the checking mechanism of the appeal system, which provides a stimulus to entry clearance officers to get the decision right in the first place, will be removed. The figures on that do not appear in any statistics, because that threat of appeal if people get the decision wrong exists only as an internal policing role.
      Of the 13,882 people who appealed on refusal of entry clearance abroad, 3,845 had their appeals allowed. It is outrageous that the Government are prepared to see that those who are initially wrongfully refused entry to the United Kingdom can be left with no recourse to any further consideration of their cases. The Government's proposal of a monitor is inadequate for the appeals procedure. However, we are aware that the monitoring process will be steamrollered through in the normal manner this evening, so it is incumbent on us to make efforts to strengthen the monitoring process, as well as criticising the reason why we need that process—the abolition of the right of appeal.
      Our amendments set out proposals to give teeth to the monitor. Initially, they are aimed at ensuring greater independence for the monitor from the Secretary of State. To start with, how independent can a monitor be if he is appointed by the Secretary of State? Our amendment would ensure that the monitor is appointed by the Commission for Racial Equality. The appointee would then have a truly independent role and he would not have his role of independent scrutineer determined by the Secretary of State.
      The CRE appointee would determine which cases he investigated and would have access to the files necessary for a proper investigation of refused cases. We believe that the CRE would be the appropriate organisation to appoint the monitor and such an arrangement would ensure that the body that has experience in monitoring the actions of immigration authorities would be able to oversee the workings of the entry clearance system. Its record, and the work that it has done, speak for themselves. It would bring an element of independence to the process, thereby ensuring that all communities could have faith that the process was working on an impartial basis.
      That raises the question of adequate resources. The monitor that the CRE chooses must have a properly staffed and resourced office. It is not clear whether the

      65
      Secretary of State's appointee will have the adequate secretarial or administrative back-up that a monitor must have if he is to be effective. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he will have that.
      The number of cases that a one-man or one-woman operation could monitor would be minuscule. With one person attempting to dip into the various files and reviews, only a tiny number of cases would be reviewed. Even with this unambitious proposal of monitoring, we should set a target of at least 10 per cent. of refusals being examined by the monitor and his staff. Anything less would render the exercise even more transparently an exercise in camouflage of the abolition of the right of appeal than it is already.
      In carrying out his responsibilities, the monitor should, if necessary, be allowed to call witnesses before him to enable him to determine the reasons for refusal of entry clearances. He should have the power to refer any such refusal to the Secretary of State for reconsideration. If he is to be effective, it is essential that the monitor is able to contact those who are refused as individuals and get full access to the notes and files.
      The Minister has promised that people will be sent a more detailed refusal letter, but it is not quite clear how detailed that refusal letter will be. There may be notes of an interview between the entry clearance officer and the refused visitor, as referrred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Those notes will be set out from the entry clearance officer's point of view, and it seems unlikely that any documents presented to him will be kept. There will be no explanatory statement setting out his thought processes and, more importantly, nothing from the visitor's point of view.
      In appeals that succeed, the visitor can usually explain misunderstandings or misinterpretations in the first interview or even give a more full explanation than that recorded by the entry clearance officer. However, as the Bill stands, that information will not be available to the monitor, so his decision will be given after only a cursory examination of some of the papers. We could not readily accept that. Even if, on the information available, the monitor believes that a decision is wrong, there will be no redress for the individual visitor. He will not even know that his case has been reviewed and he will not be informed of the outcome or told that entry clearance will be granted in future. Because he will not know about any review, he cannot make any representations.
      If, magically, on that brief random sample the monitor decides that injustice has been done, there will be no way of redressing it. We are not talking about an odd problem or two—last year almost 4,000 individuals won their appeals. This year, people will not even know whether their cases are being reviewed. The Government's proposals will simply perpetuate injustices unless adequate information and access are provided. Indeed, the very fact that an inadequate monitoring system exists may make the position worse. The courts may feel that due process has been gone through, which will undermine the concept of judicial review. The monitor's report, especially if it is favourable, could be used to support any suggestion that decisions are generally fair. That will make it even harder for individual visitors to contest unjust refusals.
      It is worth repeating that currently 20 per cent. of refusals are found to be in error on appeal. I make no apology for repeating the analogy that I used some time ago on Second Reading—imagine what would happen if there was a 20 per cent. error rate in other areas of the civil
      66
      service, perhaps in the income tax returns of hon. Members or their constituents, or perhaps in social security claims. It would be absolutely intolerable.
      The very fact that the scale of the problem has been highlighted is due to the appeals system. People can appeal, and we can find out what mistakes have been made. That will no longer be available and the monitor will not be able to overturn even the most blatantly wrong decisions. I hope that the House agrees that that is neither acceptable nor just.
      Our amendments would ensure that the monitor reports to the House not once a year, as the Government propose, but monthly. That may appear to be a heavy burden, but as the monitor will have very few powers the least that we should do is to ensure that he regularly alerts the House to the high number of applications being wrongfully refused. Hon. Members can then debate the issue in the House. Of course, this is not really the place where appeals against wrongful refusal should be heard, but if it is all that is available, hon. Members should have the necessary information provided monthly. I repeat that we are talking not about the odd case, but about at least 4,000 cases a year. There would certainly be enough cases to keep hon. Members chewing over the monitor's report each month. We need to scrutinise the system as thoroughly as possible.
      The amendments would broaden the scope of the monitor's investigations, which is crucial to improving his proposed role. He should investigate refusals of entry and refusals of entry clearance. We want the monitor to review and investigate the rejection of both and the latter is included in Lord's amendment No. 10. Refusals of leave to enter at airports and ports, or any refusals of students or prospective students, would not then be excluded, as they currently are, from the monitor's remit.
      We are conscious of the need to give the monitor teeth. We have realised for some time that the Government's intention behind this proposal is merely to give some respectability to the withdrawal of the right of appeal for those refused entry clearance. We give the right of appeal to a common murderer, but not to a mother seeking to enter this country to be present at, for example, a family funeral, christening or other religious ceremony. In the Government's view, they are not worthy of retaining the right of appeal.
      6.45 pm
      The plan to conceal the abolition of the right of appeal has not worked. I call upon the Government to accept the amendments and give the monitor some genuine powers and a genuine role. If the Government do not do that, they stand accused and condemned of just carrying out a public relations exercise to limit the political damage that they have inflicted not just on themselves, but on many of our innocent fellow citizens, by abolishing the right of appeal.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I must inform the House that amendment No. 10 involves privilege.
      Mr. Corbyn: Over the years, I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with individual cases of immigration law and refusals of entry clearance. It takes up an incredible amount of the time of any hon. Member representing a constituency, as I do, which has people from all parts of the world. I shall not go into great detail,

      67
      but I can tell the House of the horror and misery caused to those families who cannot be reunited because of the bureaucracy of our immigration rules.
      It is fundamentally wrong that our immigration laws should be the opposite of all other presumptions of law. The presumption of guilt is on the individual, there is a lack of right of appeal, a lack of natural justice in dealing with the case and the Secretary of State is judge, jury gaoler, executioner and deportation officer. He has total power over the lives of a large number of people.
      The history of the clause with which we are dealing lies in the way that good and expert immigration lawyers have, over the years, consistently challenged the nonsense of the operation of existing immigration law. They have had a number of successful judicial review cases and have also taken cases to the European Court. The Government are attempting to raise the threshold for judicial review in an attempt to evade any accountability for the decisions made by entry clearance officers. Although the Lords amendments do not go anything like as far as I would wish, at least they provide the basis for monitoring and examining what is happening. That has to be a slight improvement on what the Government initially wanted.
      We must deal with a number of issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, those seeking entry clearance currently have a right of appeal if the decision goes against them. The appeal is heard and a decision made, albeit often in unfortunate circumstances because frequently those people have already been removed from this country and have lost their ability to return. I understand that in one year, one third of all the cases appealed are successful—yet the Secretary of State wants to remove that right of appeal.
      The proceedings in Committee were farcical. It was obvious that Afro-Caribbean and Asian families resident in this country were concerned and angry at the prospect of visitors being unable to come here for happy family events such as birthdays, weddings or the birth of a child, or for sad family events such as funerals. They were alarmed by the prospects of the removal of the right of appeal and the unfettered power that that would give to officers in British missions overseas.
      In an attempt to get out of that mess, the Secretary of State contacted the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), who willingly went along with the nonsense of allowing a second application rather than a proper right of appeal. Presumably the hon. Gentleman presented that as some kind of victory and indication of his parliamentary skills, but the opposite is true. It made an appalling situation even worse. It was a travesty of justice in the first place, and it makes a total mockery of sense of justice to allow a second bite of the cherry if one can afford to pay for it. It is time that was made clear and put on the record.
      As to the right of those from Somalia to enter the country at this time, I have been contacted by solicitors representing a number of Somali citizens who seek family reunion. As the Minister knows, if a family gains full asylum status in this country, family reunion is automatic. Increasingly, the Department is both to grant asylum to anyone. I am not sure of the process through which one must go to persuade the Home Office that one is worthy of asylum.
      68
      Instead, the Home Office grants the lesser right of exceptional leave to remain, which means a four-year delay until such time as the application for family reunion can be considered. That is a long time in the life of a child, and is totally unjustified and unfair if the Minister knows all along that the Home Office will have to grant entry to the rest of the family at some time, so that it can be reunited.
      Persons who are granted exceptional leave to remain in the country must pay the usual visa fees, which can be as much as £60 per person. Those fees are waived in respect of relatives of refugees but not of those given exceptional leave to enter. I do not understand why those persons must pay when they are granted the right of residence in this country for virtually the same reasons as relatives of refugees.
      It is time that the Government understood the deep anguish felt by many in this country at the way in which their relatives and friends are treated when they merely try to visit. In Committee, we warned of the implications—of the unpleasantness, and of the total lack of accountability in respect of the work done by entry clearance officers in British missions abroad.
      The basic tenet of Government in a democratic society is that official decisions can be challenged at some stage. The only way that an individual can now challenge the decisions of individual immigration officers at British missions abroad or in this country is to contact a Member of Parliament. That Member of Parliament can contact a Minister, and if he does not give a satisfactory answer, the Member of Parliament can try to raise the matter in the House. That is not satisfactory, and there ought to be normal, basic rights of appeal—as there are in every other area of life.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is attempting to improve proposals that he admits are not anyway very satisfactory. The suggestion is that just one individual will serve as a monitor. As just one constituency Member of Parliament, I cannot monitor in detail all the problems that are brought to me—and I am sure that I speak for other right hon. and hon. Members in that regard. How on earth will one individual be able adequately to monitor the situation on behalf of the Government?
      The Minister has the largest private office in the whole of Whitehall, and the biggest budget. He has also the largest staff and the biggest volume of individual casework. That is because immigration law has been concocted in such a curious way. We need in its place real rights of appeal, real rights of accountability, and real rights for those who seek family reunion or who want legitimately to join relatives in this country.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North rightly pointed out, there is need also for an independent basis for the monitor. I am not happy with the idea of the Secretary of State appointing a monitor to monitor himself. I can imagine who the Secretary of State might appoint to sit at the desk in the corner of his office, whom he can tell how to monitor the work. Monthly, not annual, reports are needed, as is some form of appeal other than an appeal to the very same Secretary of State who made the original decision or on whose behalf the decision was made.
      The issue will not go away. Every few years, the Government try some new means of removing the rights of those who want to join their families, friends and relatives

      69
      in this country. We have seen various changes to immigration rules, and the curtailment of the rights of Members of Parliament and of access to judicial review and the European Court. There is now to be a lack of any form of appeal against decisions. When a totally erroneous and ludicrous decision is made, I am sure that a way will be found to have the case made the subject of judicial review—and then we shall be back on the merry-go-round. It is time to review the issue in the light of justice, equality and fair play, rather than make those affected suffer bureaucratic horrors and misery.
      The losers in that bureaucratic merry-go-round are the families separated by thousands of miles of sea and mountains of paperwork, and the growing children who are unable to remain with their parents, as they should rightfully do—to live happily and harmoniously. They cannot do so because of the way in which immigration law operates.
      Mr. Greville Janner: I share he views so eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) but take them further. My hon. Friend said that the Government will find some way to get around ludicrous decisions, but that will not be possible. Where a ludicrous decision is made, the sufferer will be returned to wherever he or she came from, and then it will be too late to do anything. That is the basic problem of monitoring as opposed to the right of appeal.
      The abolition of that right is a monstrous act for a decent country to perform. I declare a certain personal interest, in that all four of my grandparents came to this country at the end of the last century to seek asylum—whether by that term or otherwise—from the vicious miseries then imposed on Jewish people by the Tsar and his armies. As I listened to the debate, I wondered whether my grandparents would even have gained entry to this country on the terms now proposed.
      If they had not done so because some official had exercised his or her power, my grandparents would have boarded another ship; if they had the money to do so—or would have been put on another ship. Neither my revered father or I would have had the proud privilege of serving the House, whether as a Member of Parliament or as an official, or in any other capacity.
      Mr. Charles Wardle: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we are debating the abolition of appeal against the refusal of visit visas and mandatory refusals of entry clearance. That has nothing to do with asylum applications or with appeals against the refusal of settlement applications.
      Mr. Janner: The whole system of appeals should apply to everyone. My constituents complain that a relative is not allowed entry to attend a funeral—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks is one thing but, as a lawyer, he will appreciate that the amendments are fairly tightly drawn. The hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks should remain within the bounds of the Lords amendments under consideration.
      Mr. Janner: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was only responding to the Minister's intervention. I will direct my remarks with pleasure at
      70
      clause 10, point by point—and then there can be no allegation that I am straying one inch from the path of legal propriety. Amendment No. 10 to clause 10 states:
      "The Secretary of State shall appoint a person".
      Why should the Secretary of State appoint the monitor? Why should the individual who is to be monitored decide who is to do the monitoring? Even with our system of appointment to Select Committees, one of which I am privileged to chair, it is not the relevant Department or Minister being monitored that appoints the members of that Committee but the Whips. They may make mistakes —for example, no woman serves on the Employment Committee. However, at least the members of Select Committees cannot be accused of being appointed by the Minister.
      The Secretary of State is to appoint "a person"—one person to monitor thousands of applications. That will provide thousands of opportunities to do people harm and injustice. That person will not be "an officer of his". What good news. Thank heaven for small mercies. At least the Home Office will not be landed with a responsibility that I am sure its officials would not welcome.
      7 pm
      The person appointed will monitor refusals not in accordance with the interests of natural justice, but
      "in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine"
      The Secretary of State will not only appoint the monitor, but decide the way in which that monitor will do his duty. What a travesty. The person to be put on trial will appoint the judge; there will be no jury; and the same person will decide the way in which the tribunal is to proceed. This is not justice, but a cover-up—an attempt to make people think that justice will be available. It is not a way of ensuring that those who come to this country have rights; it constitutes an assurance that no such rights will exist.
      The Lords amendment states:
      "The Secretary of State shall appoint a person, not being an officer of his, to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance".
      Following such a refusal, the applicant must return to his own country, because he will have no right of appeal. The refusal will then be monitored.
      Mr. Charles Wardle: That is right.
      Mr. Janner: But how is the monitoring to be carried out? I wonder whether the Minister has ever stood beside such people and watched the way in which they work. Of course, there are good ones and bad ones.
      Mr. Wardle: Yes.
      Mr. Janner: No doubt the Minister has observed such people since taking his present post. Of course, they would not have known who he was; they would have carried out their work in the ordinary way, because the Minister would have appeared incognito.
      Can the Minister imagine what it would be like to be a relative of one of my constituents, coming over from India to attend a wedding, and to be told, "Goodbye—out you go. One day, someone will monitor the refusal of your application, and make a report a year later. Her Majesty's Government will consider the report—in such manner as they will determine—and then decide how to deal with it. Eventually, it will be laid before the House." Of course, the Government will have a big enough majority to ram through anything they like, just as they will be able to ram

      71
      through this rubbish tonight—unless there are enough by-elections to change things: that cannot happen soon enough for me.
      Refusals will be monitored only when there is no right of appeal,
      "and the person so appointed shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions".
      What does that actually mean? The report need not be made at the end of the year; it can be made six months later, by which time everyone who has been refused entry and has gone home will probably be dead. As Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead: certainly, the amendment is a dead measure which will breathe no life into this corpse of a Bill.
      Mr. Allen: My hon. and learned Friend is being characteristically generous—even to the Government—in assuming that each refusal will be monitored. Unfortunately, that will not happen; a random selection will be made. Only a handful will be examined, and those whose cases are monitored will be extremely lucky. Who knows what will happen then? No action need arise.
      Mr. Janner: If I was trying to be generous, I covered it up as best I could. I certainly was not suggesting that every case would be considered. That cannot happen: cases will be monitored
      "in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine".
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has pointed out, the manner in which they are monitored will depend on the staff allotted to the one person who is to act as supreme monitor of the public school machinery that is being installed to determine who is allowed into the country.
      What will happen to the report? The Secretary of State
      "shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament."
      How wonderful. But when will that happen, and what can the House do if it does not like the report? What will happen to those who are sent home, and what will happen to their families? What misery will be caused? How many people who should have been allowed in will be excluded, and what hardship will be imposed by a bad system, a bad Bill and a clause that Opposition Members have tried to improve? No doubt even our modest amendments will be rejected.
      I know that the Minister does his best to be kind in individual cases. I urge him to recognise the vast unkindness that clause 10 and the Lords amendment will do, and how little the monitor will be able to do to put matters right.
      Mr. Jim Lester: I spoke about this matter on Second Reading. I share the concern of families whose connections are refused entry to attend important functions which any normal family would expect to be fully attended. When travelling in different parts of the world, I have talked to entry clearance officers; I genuinely believe that many try to do as fair a job as possible, given the circumstances in which they operate. In some countries—in Thailand, for example, and on the Indian subcontinent—they experience real difficulties.
      On Second Reading, I suggested that offence is caused to those who issue invitations in this country, and that it might be worth while to consider sponsors and their supporters. In my constituency, the cases that cause the
      72
      gravest offence involve people who have made a considerable effort to invite visitors—parents, perhaps—and to fill in forms saying that no claim for social security will be made. They may have gone to further trouble by coming to my surgeries and asking me to countersign such forms.
      Many such people are stalwarts in their local communities, and are constantly praised at various functions for being law-abiding and contributing so much to society. I sincerely believe that that is the case. When their relatives are refused entry, the impression is given that they are colluding with someone who is seeking to break the law, which gives enormous offence.
      Many appeals are submitted after the wedding, or whatever, has taken place: the appellant realises that, by the time the appeal is heard, it will be pointless, but wishes to justify the original invitation. Appellants want to clear their names, and to make it clear that the invitation was genuine and that they would not collude with any illegal activity.
      I have corresponded with entry clearance officers, and I know how they work. As I said on Second Reading, I want to help them. They will often set on one side the information given from this country. The applicant sitting before them may be very unsophisticated, with no knowledge with what the ECO is fishing for. The person who has invited the applicant may have a shop, and the applicant may be asked whether he will be working.
      In normal circumstances, someone staying with a relative who has a shop would be odd not to help out, and that might be understood to mean work; but it would bring about an immediate refusal, because an application for a work permit is not being made. Unsophisticated applicants may be caught out—although it may not be intended—by questions with a legalistic base, which do not relate to the ordinary existence of those who issue invitations.
      I agree with what Opposition Members have said. We want justice to be done. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment: to allow appeals to be heard more quickly so that families who are settled here can bring to this country wives and others who are at the end of a long appeals system, which to some extent is clogged by people who want to make short-term visits.
      People usually issue invitations for important functions well in advance, and therefore should not be faced with refusals that can cause great offence. A doctor in my constituency did not speak for three months after his parents were refused the opportunity to come here. Fortunately, I was able to intervene, and eventually his parents were allowed entry. The shock and horror of refusal, after issuing a perfectly normal invitation to his parents to come and stay with him for a short time, caused tremendous offence to that doctor.
      Many of us are very uneasy about there being no right of appeal. I do not know whether figures are available which show that people who came here on a visitor's visa stayed on illegally. I suspect that some have. It would be odd, given human nature, if that had not happened, but I suspect that the number is tiny, compared with the number of refusals.
      I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says about monitoring and about how account is to be taken both of the invitee and of the invitations issued by British citizens, who have every right to ask members of their families to join them here for important family occasions.
      Mr. Boateng: The Government add insult to injury by their amendment of clause 10. The injury is the removal of the right of appeal. The insult is the imposition of a monitor. What we wanted, what we hoped to see, was some sort of watchdog. What we got was a poodle—not just a poodle but a blinded poodle, a poodle with its vocal chords cut, a neutered poodle, a poodle incapable of uttering so much as the barest squeak of disapproval against any action taken by an entry clearance officer or any immigration officer who determines an application to enter at a port of entry. That is not good enough.
      The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to the sponsors, to those who issue the invitations. The experience of many of us—I cannot believe that it is confined to those who sit on this side of the House—is that the most important feature of a sponsor, someone who issues an invitation, and very often the determining feature of a sponsor, is not the merits of a particular case, whether it be an invitation to a wedding, a christening or another innocuous family event, but the colour of the sponsor and the race of the sponsor who issues the invitation. There is no escaping the issue of racism that underpins this provision.
      I would not be making a protest with the force and strength that I do about this amendment if I, or any other hon. Member. could be satisfied that racism was not involved in the administration of the immigration system. We all know that it is. We all know that a different standard applies to visitors from Canada, the United States and other areas of the world from that which applies to the Indian subcontinent, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. If one's skin is black or brown, the reality is that one will be treated differently. That is the truth of the matter.
      7.15 pm
      I wish that the Minister could say with conviction that that is not the case, but he knows that it is the case and that different criteria apply depending upon the origin of those in the community who issue the invitations and the place to which they are sent. That is the conclusion to which all of us, regrettably, have come. No one should easily make the charge of racism. All too often it is easy enough to cry "Racist", but those of us who deal with these cases day in, day out do not make that charge lightly. It is a charge that is borne out by the facts.
      What is so nauseating about amendment No. 10 is that, having abolished the right of appeal, it proposes the appointment of a monitor. This person will be appointed by the Secretary of State. His functions will be determined by the Secretary of State. He will be resourced by the Secretary of State. He will be expected to oversee the role of the entry clearance officers.
      That is not good enough. There must be a better way. Those who take an interest in these matters are left with the suspicion that an agenda has been embraced by the Home Office: to seek every opportunity to minimise the capacity for there to be some surveillance, some control over the operation of the immigration rules by entry clearance officers and others.
      The suspicion is that the Home Office does not want the entry clearance officers to be scrutinised or to be accountable, and that it wants those who make these decisions to know that the opportunities for scrutiny and for people to be brought to book where there has been injustice will be minimised.
      74
      The Minister has received many representations. I do not question the fact that he takes our representations seriously, nor do I question the care and attention that both he and those who work for him give to them. However, it is precisely because of that care and attention, and precisely because the Minister knows that, time and time again, injustices have occurred, by virtue of the nature of the decisions and the judgments that have been reached, that there ought to be a right of appeal.
      It is precisely because the right of appeal is to be abolished, which we condemn, as does everyone who knows or cares about this subject, that we say that this monitoring process must be capable of providing some redress for those who suffer injustice as a result of the omissions and mistakes of the officials who are charged with this responsibility.
      The proposed monitoring does not go far enough. We do not accept it. We believe that it is right to seek to strengthen it. Even at this late stage, we hope that the Minister will go at least some of the way towards recognising that the monitoring process needs to be beefed up and made more accountable to this House, so that individuals can be given some hope of redress.
      Mr. Gerrard: As many of my hon. Friends have already said, the clause to which the amendment relates includes some of the most controversial aspects of the Bill and those most likely to affect people already living in this country. I am referring to the abolition of the right of appeal for visitors who are refused entry clearance and the great distress caused by such refusals to the families involved. The abolition will also apply to students.
      Lords amendment No. 10 allows for the monitoring of refusals of entry clearance, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, not refusals of leave to enter. That is an important distinction, which can be significant for people who arrive as potential visitors from countries where visas are not required before coming to the United Kingdom. I shall say more about that issue later.
      The Government have said that all refusals will be checked by senior officers. I think that, in saying that, the Minister was attempting to reassure people that appeals would be dealt with in another way. However, reconsideration by a senior officer of a refusal will not give people confidence that an independent decision has been made. The amendment contains the Government's alternative proposal, which is to check or audit refusals of entry clearance. As has already been said, that is no substitute for the right of appeal, but, if that is how we are to proceed, we should at the very least do it properly, which is the purpose of our amendment.
      I was interested in the way in which the amendment was first moved in another place. The Minister there spoke of the intention—the periodic review by an independent person of a sample of cases in which entry clearance had been refused. It was stated that the person appointed to carry out the review should be seen to be independent of the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that entry clearance officers and managers would not know in advance which cases were to be examined and that the results should be made public. It is worth questioning whether the amendment matches even those very limited aims. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in more detail how the monitoring will work.

      75
      Who will decide which cases are to be reconsidered? Will it be the monitor or the Home Office? In what depth will the cases be examined? What access will the monitor have to files? Will he be able to examine files from British posts abroad? Will he be allowed to examine instructions to entry clearance officers and sit in on interviews to see at first hand how the process is conducted? Will the annual report contain details of individual cases that the monitor has examined? If publication is to be merely a statistical exercise, it will be relatively worthless. Of course, the statistics of the cases checked by the monitor need to be published, but we should also be allowed to consider individual cases, to know what the monitor thought of them and his recommendations for improvements, if necessary. What level of staffing will be provided?
      One reason that the Government gave for refusing the appeals system was cost. Another was the backlog that was building up. When the formal right of appeal has been abolished, there are likely to be more refusals and, therefore, more cases that the monitor should review. Even if a reasonable sample is taken—for example, 10 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North suggested—we could end up with a system under which the sample to be considered will be as great as that under the previous appeals system, but with much less chance of justice because the system will not provide redress to individuals.
      I am especially concerned about the people who are refused entry, an issue dealt with in amendment (e). It is, of course, perfectly possible for people to be refused entry as opposed to entry clearance. Those who are refused entry do not at the moment have a formal right of appeal. Many avenues, such as approaching a Member of Parliament, have been cut off. Many people who have dealt with such cases, for example, hon. Members who have taken up the cases of constituents who are refused entry when arriving for a visit, will know of the inconsistencies and the subjective nature of the decisions made.
      Why is one person refused entry, another given temporary admission and another admitted? It is often extremely difficult for anyone dealing with such cases to see any distinction between them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the one distinction that can often be made is the colour of the skin of the person applying to enter the country.
      Last year, I had the experience of dealing with someone who had been stopped at Heathrow, arriving for a visit. A constituent contacted me about the case and was appalled at the way in which the person had been treated at the airport and the fact that his word was being questioned. In fact, in that instance, the person was a white American who could hardly believe what was happening. I told him that it happened every day, certainly to black and Asian constituents, whose friends and relatives are stopped at the airport. They may be angry, upset, annoyed and appalled that their word is being questioned, but they are never surprised because they know that it happens as a matter of course.
      People often get in touch when a visitor is coming and ask whether they can contact me if they need help when the relative arrives at the airport. It is expected that the visitor
      76
      will be stopped, especially where visas are not required and it is merely a refusal of entry—they are the cases which will not be monitored under the Government's proposals.
      Our amendment would have the important effect of bringing refusals of entry into the monitoring system. Although such a provision might be inadequate, such cases would at least be considered in some form. Clearly, Lords amendment No. 10 will be accepted. As has been said, it is grossly inadequte, but if it is to be put into effect, our amendment, which should be accepted, would at the very least provide something of use. If the Lords amendment remains in its present form, it will be wholly inadequate.
      Mr. Winnick: It is right that Members of all parties should be concerned about the abolition of the appeals system. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and some of my hon. Friends have spoken about the Bill's effect on community and race relations.
      It cannot be emphasised too often that this part of the Bill affects many people, some of whom were born here or have been in Britain for a long time, who are perfectly entitled to be here and who are part and parcel of our country. They might invite someone to this country—usually a close relative or friend—and then find that it is extremely difficult for the invitee to get in, especially if the sponsor is of West Indian origin or is originally from the Indian sub-continent. When I dealt with such cases some years ago, it was rare for my clients to be European. The explanation is perfectly simple—Europeans have much less difficulty in coming here as visitors than do people from the West Indies or the Indian sub-continent.
      What should concern the Government is the number of refusals—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—that have been overturned by the adjudicator. Why is it that in such a large percentage of cases in which a person has been refused entry—obviously a minority of cases, that is not in dispute—and in which an appeal has gone before an adjudicator in Britain, the refusal has been overturned? Without even being able to see the appellant involved—he cannot do that—the adjudicator has judged that the decision taken by the entry clearance officer is wrong and the appeal has been upheld.
      Instead of being concerned that so many cases have been overturned, the Government have decided to abolish the right of appeal itself. The Government seem so embarrassed by the fact that those decisions have been overturned that they have decided not to allow that to occur any longer by taking away the right of appeal.
      7.30 pm
      I remember representing a young Palestinian woman who had been in Britain for a short time. She worked here, she was perfectly entitled to be here and she was not subject to any restrictions. She invited over her brother who was living in a middle eastern country. The entry clearance officer decided that the brother should not be allowed to enter Britain because he would have no incentive to leave this country. Fortunately, an appeal was made and when the case went before an adjudicator, his sister, the sponsor, explained that she had not seen her brother for a long time and that she was able to support him for the short period in which he would be living in Britain. I am pleased to say that the adjudicator decided that the appeal should be allowed.

      77
      I find it difficult to believe that, under the Government's proposal for someone to monitor refusals, such a case would come to the surface. After all, how many cases will the monitor consider? We have been told that it will not be literally every case. He may not look at one in five or even one in 10. The case to which I have referred might not even have come to the monitor's attention if such a position had existed in the past and if there had been no appeals system.
      It must be emphasised that the entry clearance officer decides whether a person should enter the country on the basis of the facts that are presented. He must be satisfied that the person will leave Britain at the end of his stay. Of course, that is why there are quite a number of refusals and why the appeals system is in operation.
      If the Minister had told us that the appeals system was being abolished because of the number of successful appeals after which a person, having won the right to come here on a visit, decided to overstay, at least we could have had some sort of reasoned argument, even if we disputed that statement. As I understand it, however, the Minister has not said that the appeals system is being abolished because people have abused it by deciding to stay, against the law, after winning their appeal, and that it has been a job for the Home Office to locate those people so that it can turf them out. We have not had a reasoned argument for the abolition of the appeals system.
      I said in an intervention that the appeals system is useful because when the original decision is being taken by the entry clearance officer, that immigration official working abroad has to be careful. He or she knows that if the person is refused and there is an appeal, he will have to write an explanatory statement which will go before the adjudicator. He will have to set out all the arguments—sometimes four, five or six pages long—to justify the decision. That will no longer occur under the Government's proposals. The entry clearance officer, however conscientious he or she may be, will know that if the answer is no, the chances of the decision being challenged are very slim.
      The monitor may pick up the decision during his year's work, but most likely that will not occur. If a Member of Parliament writes to the Minister, it is, again, not likely that the entry clearance officer will have to go to the same lengths to justify his decision as he would if there were an appeals system. The new system will work against the person who is trying to come to the United Kingdom for a genuine visit.
      As we know, there has been an outburst during the past week or so about the number of people coming to Britain. There has been an upsurge of racism among Conservative Members, although fortunately a small minority. Again, the race card is being played and, again, we are being told as we have been told previously of the hordes of people who are coming over to Britain and of the alien invasion.
      We know how tight immigration control is in practice. We know how difficult it is for people to come over here. We know that primary immigration into Britain ended years ago. Those of my hon. Friends who take up cases all the time know how difficult it is for many people even to be able to come on a visit here if they come from the Indian sub-continent or from the West Indies. That is a fact. It is unfortunate that people who legitimately want to invite a close relative or friend or friend from the parts of the world that I have mentioned should find it even more difficult as a result of the Government's decision.
      78
      The Minister is a courteous person. I have found that whatever decisions he reaches, he is always willing to listen, unlike some of his predecessors. I am sure that my hon. Friends appreciate that we have a Home Office Minister who is courteous and who at least listens to our representations. However, he has a very bad brief. The Government have taken a wrong decision which is harmful to community and race relations. Perhaps even at this very late stage—one is obviously not hopeful—there will be further serious consideration of the proposal by the new Home Secretary.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has enormous experience of dealing with immigration and race policies, especially as he is a former chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. On Second Reading, I warned the Minister that it would be unacceptable to replace a right of appeal with the administrative arrangements that he had in mind then. The whole House regrets the fact that he chooses now to add the official monitor to his list of administrative arrangements. That will not make up for the fact that the right of appeal will be removed.
      On Second Reading and when we most recently discussed the matter, I listed a number of immigration officers and entry clearance officers in posts abroad. I shall not repeat their names for fear of further damaging their careers. I told the Minister then that those entry clearance officers were very concerned about the fact that the Government proposed to take away the right of appeal. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he has now had a chance to consult those entry clearance officers and that they are in full agreement with the Government's decision to remove the right of appeal and to replace it by the appointment of the monitor.
      It is not clear precisely whom the Minister has in mind to be the official monitor.
      Mr. Winnick: Lord Owen.
      Mr. Vaz: Perhaps the Minister has in mind the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), the uninvited guest of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). Perhaps he will be chosen because of his unbiased and fair views on immigration policy. The House has a right to know how the monitor will be chosen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has suggested Lord Owen. Lord Walker may be another possibility, as he seems to sit on most of the quangos that the Government have created. The identity of the monitor is of great interest to the House.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) refers to the proposal as being akin to putting in place a neutered poodle without vocal chords. I think it is akin to something even smaller than a poodle—perhaps a neutered chihuahua with no vocal chords. Clearly, the person appointed by the Minister will be responsible to him. It is clear that it would not be possible for that person to take the place of a well established appeals system that has proved in many cases to be one in which people can have faith.
      I am concerned about the great backlog in the appeal system and I wish that cases could have been dealt with much more quickly. It is odd when there is a backlog simply to abolish the tribunal that is considering the cases.

      79
      The entry clearance officers in Bombay and in New Delhi told me that they want a fair system. They thought that it was wrong that they should have to second-guess themselves, because they could not possibly act impartially once they had rejected a case. Even if that case were given to another member of staff—perhaps a more senior member such as a first secretary—that person would still be in close contact with the other entry clearance officers. They preferred a system whereby "an independent tribunal"—dare I repeat the words that the Minister writes to hon. Members almost every week?—"set up by Parliament to consider independently the merits of the case" should consider that case.
      I pick up on a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). Ministerial decisions have been hived off to officials and quangos such as that which will no doubt surround the new official monitor. My hon. Friend's point concerned the way in which hon. Members have to deal with immigration officers at Heathrow airport and other ports. He is right to raise the serious problems that are now occurring because of the misuse of the guidelines by immigration officers.
      Those in the Minister's private office know all about one case of mine because I rang up and had a rant to them about it. As usual, I was dealt with very courteously. Under the present guidelines, hon. Members must deal with officials at both the posts and at the ports. Instead of a reasonable conversation with the Minister or one of his officials, hon. Members must deal with officers who, by the nature of their shift pattern, have to go off after dealing with a case and interviewing a client. That case is taken over by another immigration officer who has no direct knowledge of the way in which the matter was dealt with. A relative of a constituent of mine was kept in detention for 48 hours because officials could not find an interpreter in the language of his choice. It cost the taxpayer more to keep that person in detention rather than to give him temporary admission.
      When I asked for permission to speak to that person, I was told by the immigration officer that I would have to leave my constituency duties in Leicester and travel to Heathrow where I would be allowed to interview the person. The officer did not consider it appropriate in those circumstances for the person to be put on temporary admission, although the person's sponsor, who was well known to me, was prepared to give any guarantee necessary in order to ensure that that person was properly interviewed. It is a denial of the rights of hon. Members that we are not permitted to see such people at our surgeries in our constituencies.
      Everyone has, to some extent, lavished the Minister with praise about how courteous, kind, nice and reasonable he is. I have yet to experience an occasion on which I have brought to the Minister's attention the case of an abandoned spouse when he has been courteous and offered me a cup of tea and said that that person could stay. Perhaps he will do so in the future.
      If the Minister will not listen to the views of Opposition Members and also those of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who has yet again come out in support of the rights of people to be able to visit their relatives in this country, he should listen to voluntary organisations. Those organisations—such as the United Kingdom
      80
      Immigrants Advisory Service and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—have come forward with tremendous experience. Those organisations and others, including the churches, have urged him to think again about the removal of the right of appeal and I urge him even at this late stage to do so.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Charles Wardle: I have listened to the debate with care. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the refusal of temporary admission and to people's being kept in detention. I emphasise that temporary admission is considered and granted wherever possible. It must be for the immigration service to decide where that is not appropriate. I suspect—1 am guessing here—that the hon. Gentleman may have been referring to a recent case concerning a constituent of his who was a sponsor of someone who came from Malawi. I may have that right or I may have it wrong. I suspect from the name of the individual concerned that he came from northern Malawi. If so, he need have looked no further than to me if he wanted someone to exchange a few words in Chichewa with that individual—but I will leave it at that.
      The House will be aware that the abolition of appeals against refusal of visit visas and the right of appeal against mandatory refusals has already been debated and passed in both Houses. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North, who opened the debate, talked of strengthening the monitoring process. In fact, the Opposition amendments seek to do more than that: effectively, they seek to reinstate the appeal powers.
      The Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 10 seek to reinstate some form of appeal process for visitors and others who lose their right of appeal under the provisions of the Bill. When my noble friend the Minister of State accepted amendment No. 10—it was, of course, Baroness Flather who moved it—he made it clear that we were not contemplating some alternative form of appeal system by which applicants or sponsors could seek to have the decision in an individual case overturned, but, rather, a periodic review or audit of a random sample of entry clearance refusals by an independent person, to ensure that fair and consistent standards of decision making were maintained. The Opposition's proposed amendments seek, in effect, to hijack that scheme and turn it into something very different. Not only do they seek to create an avenue through which to challenge decisions in individual cases; they would create a system that would be even more wasteful, cumbersome and ineffective than the appeals procedures that are to be abolished.
      Amendments (a), (b), (c) and (f) seek to involve the Commission of Racial Equality in the process, either by having the Commission conduct the monitoring or by having it nominate the person who is appointed to conduct the exercise. The Commission performs a valuable service in promoting race relations, but the proposed monitoring of administrative procedures and decisions by entry clearance officers is simply not an appropriate function to give to that body.
      Amendment (d) would make the appointed person rather than the Secretary of State responsible for determining the manner in which the monitoring should be conducted. We have made it clear, however, that the person appointed will have a wide degree of independence in the way in which he conducts the exercise. The choice of

      81
      which cases should be reviewed will be entirely his. However, the exercise must in practice be conducted within agreed guidelines on such matters as how long the exercise should last, how many posts should be visited and when the report is produced. Those matters must ultimately be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I refer here to the Foreign Secretary because this matter concerns the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
      Amendment (e) would extend the scope of the monitoring to cover refusals of leave to enter at United Kingdom ports as well as refusals of entry clearance. That is simply not practical. It has nothing to do with my noble Friend's amendment—nor is it necessary in order to maintain consistent standards at the ports.
      Amendment (g) would require monthly rather than annual reports to be made to the Secretary of State. That implies a continuous monitoring process, rather than the periodic audit review that is envisaged. It is not, in our view, justified.
      The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) talked about Somali asylum seekers and about family reunion in cases of exceptional leave to remain after four years. A distinction must be drawn between the granting of exceptional leave to remain and the granting of refugee status under the terms of the Geneva convention.
      In an entertaining contribution, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said that it was monstrous that this country should abolish appeals in such cases. However, he omitted to tell the House that we are the only country in the world to have such a system. Other countries do not have such a system—not because of a lack of innate fairness, but simply because they know that the system that we have employed for the past 20 years is cumbersome and does not work.
      Millions of people visit this country every year. There were 5·7 million visitors in 1991, in addition to other short-term visitors, and that figure relates just to non-EC nationals. If we add the EC nationals to the total, it is clear that we provide a broad welcome. The House might wish to recall that more than 92 per cent. of applications for visit visas were approved in 1991.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to sponsors. I agree with them that some appeals have certainly been prompted by a sense of hurt on the part of sponsors when they face rejection. That is precisely why in Committee we introduced the various administrative improvements which include guidance for the sponsor, guidance for the applicant and a daily review at the station by senior officials. If there is swift feedback of additional information that alters the case, it will be dealt with promptly. If a refusal notice is issued, it will be clear that that will not prejudice further applications.
      The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) referred to racism. I entirely reject his assertion. I remind the House that there is a clear-cut policy in the immigration service with regard to racism to ensure that there is absolutely no prejudice in the service. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of discussions, both in Committee and outside with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I have introduced a new system of auditing complaints against the immigration service which will be independent of Home Office officials. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is an important step forward.
      Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Wardle: I will not give way for the moment. I will break my generous rule for once because I am aware of the time.
      The audit of the work of entry clearance officers will act as a check on that work.
      The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) referred to refusals. It must make much more sense to consider the refusals each day rather than to launch into a cumbersome appeals system which may run for two years, by which time the event, in respect of which someone originally intended to come to this country, will long since have passed. I remind the hon. Member for Walthamstow, as I reminded the House earlier, that amendment No. 10 was not moved by my noble Friend the Minister of State. It was moved by Baroness Flather.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, North, whose work as chairman of UKIAS was outstanding and distinguished, also referred to the need to control the work of entry clearance officers. I remind him that there will be a daily review by the senior officer in post in addition to the audit system that I have described.
      Mr. Madden: Will the audit of complaints against immigration officers be published and reported to the House on a regular basis? The Minister has made great play of the daily review. Clearly hon. Members will be passed much information and complaints when applications are refused. Should we ring the Minister's office or that of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when we want to pass on that information which ECOs around the world will be desperately anxious to receive on a daily basis?
      Mr. Wardle: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. In response to his second question, when he is dealing with entry clearance officers, he must approach my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
      I refer briefly to Government amendment (j). Amendment No. 10 requires a person to be appointed to monitor a sample of entry clearance refusals. The person carrying out that function will obviously have to be paid an appropriate fee and other expenses such as travel costs will have to be met. Amendment (j) provides the authority for those payments to be made. As I have already said, the scheme will be administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the appointment will be made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
      With respect to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, concerns have been expressed in both Houses that, unless the system is open to some form of independent oversight, inconsistent and arbitrary decision making may follow removal of the right of appeal. The Government intend to ensure that the entry clearance system is fair and consistent and that it is properly controlled. The Government were happy to accept amendment No. 10, which provides for the appointment of an independent person to carry out periodic monitoring of a sample of entry clearance work to ensure that fair and consistent standards of decision making are maintained.
      I make it clear that we are not contemplating an alternative appeals procedure. This will not be a procedure for applicants or sponsors to seek to have a decision in an

      83
      individual case overturned. The monitoring will complement the administrative measures that I announced in Committee, including the daily review of refusals by entry clearance managers, to which I have already alluded.
      Matters of detail are in the process of being worked out. However, I can confirm that the key features of the scheme that will be introduced are as follows: the monitoring will be conducted over a regular period; the person appointed to conduct the exercise will be independent of the Home Office and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; entry clearance officers and managers will not know in advance which of their cases are to be examined—that is where the control element lies; and the reports of the independent person will be made public.
      I hope that that goes some way towards allaying the fears that have been expressed by some hon. Members that the removal of rights of appeal will lead to arbitrary decision making. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and to accept the Government amendments.
      Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 278.

      Division No. 287]

      [7.57 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Corbett, Robin

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ainger, Nick

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cousins, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Cox, Tom

      Alton, David

      Cryer, Bob

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dafis, Cynog

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Darling, Alistair

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Battle, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bell, Stuart

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

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Denham, John

      Benton, Joe

      Dewar, Donald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dixon, Don

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Betts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim

      Blair, Tony

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Boateng, Paul

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Eastham, Ken

      Bradley, Keith

      Enright, Derek

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Etherington, Bill

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

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Burden, Richard

      Fatchett, Derek

      Byers, Stephen

      Faulds, Andrew

      Caborn, Richard

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fisher, Mark

      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

      Galloway, George

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Gapes, Mike

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Garrett, John

      Clapham, Michael

      George, Bruce

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Clelland, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Godsiff, Roger

      Coffey, Ann

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cohen, Harry

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Connarty, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Grocott, Bruce

      84

      Gunnell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hall, Mike

      Mullin, Chris

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Heppell, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hinchliffe, David

      Olner, William

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Neill, Martin

      Home Robertson, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hood, Jimmy

      Patchett, Terry

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howells, Dr..Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hutton, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Illsley, Eric

      Radice, Giles

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jamieson, David

      Redmond, Martin

      Janner, Greville

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Rendel, David

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Keen, Alan

      Rooney, Terry

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Salmond, Alex

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Leighton, Ron

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lewis, Terry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Litherland, Robert

      Short, Clare

      Livingstone, Ken

      Simpson, Alan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Loyden, Eddie

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

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McAllion, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McCartney, Ian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Stevenson, George

      McFall, John

      Stott, Roger

      McKelvey, William

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McLeish, Henry

      Straw, Jack

      Maclennan, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Madden, Max

      Turner, Dennis

      Mahon, Alice

      Vaz, Keith

      Mandelson, Peter

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Marek, Dr John

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Watson, Mike

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Martlew, Eric

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Meacher, Michael

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Meale, Alan

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Michael, Alun

      Winnick, David

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wise, Audrey

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Worthington, Tony

      Milburn, Alan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Miller, Andrew

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Mr. John Spellar.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Ancram, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arbuthnot, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Amess, David

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      85

      Ashby, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Aspinwall, Jack

      French, Douglas

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Fry, Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gale, Roger

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Gallie, Phil

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Baldry, Tony

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Garnier, Edward

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bates, Michael

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Batiste, Spencer

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gorst, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Booth, Hartley

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Boswell, Tim

      Hague, William

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bowis, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Hannam, Sir John

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Harris, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hayes, Jerry

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Heald, Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Hendry, Charles

      Burt, Alistair

      Hicks, Robert

      Butler, Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Butterfill, John

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Horam, John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

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

      Churchill, Mr

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Clappison, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coe, Sebastian

      Jack, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Congdon, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Conway, Derek

      Jessel, Toby

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Couchman, James

      Key, Robert

      Cran, James

      Kilfedder, Sir James

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

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Knapman, Roger

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Day, Stephen

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

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knox, David

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dicks, Terry

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Legg, Barry

      Dover, Den

      Leigh, Edward

      Duncan, Alan

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lidington, David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lightbown, David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lord, Michael

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Luff, Peter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Evennett, David

      Maclean, David

      Faber, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Madel, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Forth, Eric

      Malone, Gerald

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Marland, Paul

      86

      Marlow, Tony

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Mates, Michael

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Merchant, Piers

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mills, Iain

      Spring, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sproat, Iain

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Steen, Anthony

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stephen, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stern, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Streeter, Gary

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sumberg, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Sweeney, Walter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sykes, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Page, Richard

      Thurnham, Peter

      Paice, James

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Patnick, Irvine

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

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Tredinnick, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Trend, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Trirnble, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Walden, George

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Redwood, John

      Ward, John

      Richards, Rod

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Riddick, Graham

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Watts, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wells, Bowen

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Whitney, Ray

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Whittingdale, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Willetts, David

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wilshire, David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sackville, Tom

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Sims, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Amendment to the Lords amendment accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (j), at end add—
      '(3AB) The Secretary of State may pay to a person appointed under subsection (3AA) above such fees and allowances as he may with the approval of the Treasury determine.'.
      Lords amendment No. 10, as amended, agreed to. [Special entry.]
      Lords amendment No. 11, agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 12 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Tony Blair, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Charles Wardle; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  WELSH LANGUAGE BILL [LORDS]
  8.13 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords] shall consist of twenty-eight Members, including not fewer than nineteen Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.
  This is my first opportunity to speak from the Government Benches as Secretary of State for Wales. I am deeply conscious of the responsibilities which that office entails. My duty will be to represent the interests of the Welsh people at the heart of government, and to argue the case for Wales when key decisions are being made. I firmly believe that the office of Secretary of State for Wales provides the best way of advancing Welsh interests within the United Kingdom, and the Union the best future for Wales in the wider world.
  The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the proper place to debate the needs and aspirations of Wales and all its people. I look forward to those debates, which I hope will prove constructive as well as incisive.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State has said that he will put the interests of Wales at the heart of his considerations. From time to time conflicts will arise between his known views in respect of, for example, privatisation and reductions in public expenditure and the interests of Wales. Such a conflict would have arisen two weeks ago about the driver and vehicle licensing centre at Swansea, which his predecessor fought hard, on Welsh grounds, to retain there. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the House that when there is such a conflict between his known ideological predilections and Wales, he will give priority to Wales?
  Mr. Redwood: That intervention is a little wide of the Bill, but of course I give the assurance that I will put the interests of Wales first. I am extremely happy with what my predecessor did on that issue and with the position of the whole Government, which is in the interests of Wales. The hon. Gentleman should not reach conclusions about what my views might or might not be on certain subjects from the cardboard caricatures that he has in his mind. He should listen to my arguments and my views. We can debate those at the proper time.
  I want to continue the dialogue with local government and other important Welsh institutions, which my predecessor initiated, for democracy flourishes beyond this House as well as within it.
  The motion is procedural. The Welsh language is an essential feature of the inheritance of these islands. It is spoken in Wales, enriching its cultural life and that of the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government do not require people to speak the language against their will, but wish to give every encouragement to those who wish to speak and to learn it. I believe that those sentiments are widely shared in the House.
  The motion relates to the constitution of the Standing Committee to consider the Bill. It is not concerned with, and has no implications for, the Welsh Grand Committee, which is established under Standing Order No. 98. The two Committees are entirely separate and distinct. I will be reflecting on changes that might be made to the role of the

  89
  Welsh Grand Committee following the discussions that my predecessor held with Opposition Members. Announcements will be made later: they are not for tonight's debate.
  The general rule, so far as the House's consideration of legislation is concerned, is that Standing Committees for the consideration of Bills should have no more than 50 members and should reflect the composition of the House. For Committees considering Bills relating exclusively to Wales, Standing Order No. 86 also provides that every Member representing a Welsh constituency shall be a member of the Standing Committee.
  It is not possible to constitute a Committee that satisfies all three requirements of that Standing Order—one with no more than 50 members, which reflects the composition of the House and which includes all Members representing Welsh constituencies. A Committee meeting all those requirements has not been constituted in recent years, irrespective of the party in power. The Labour party's Welsh Language Act 1967, its Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 all proceeded other than in accordance with Standing Order No. 86.
  Opposition Members usually claim to represent a party of the Union. In 1950, 1964 and 1974 they had no qualms about legislating for England when they failed to win a majority of seats there. As a unionist, I accepted their right so to do.
  I hope that we can build cross-party agreement on the substance of the Bill. I have pleasure in commending the motion to the House.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: We used to complain about the Secretary of State's predecessor and his over-emphasis on self-promotion and self-presentation. Following the right hon. Gentleman's debut tonight, that is not a charge that we will have to make against him.
  I offer the Secretary of State my sincere congratulations on his appointment and wish him well in his post. I know that all my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies will be ready and anxious to give him advice on how he should do his job. Who knows, on occasion the right hon. Gentleman might even be prepared to accept it.
  The Secretary of State will face a challenging few years. This is the first time to my knowledge that a Secretary of State for Wales has been appointed without any qualification. I am sure that all of us in the House and the wider Welsh community are conscious of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is in the post only because of the Prime Minister's need to maintain political balance in the Cabinet.
  An outgoing right-wing Chancellor was sacked for his incompetence and his departure had to be balanced by an incoming right winger. No one was more right wing than the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), so in he came. There was nowhere obvious to put him, so he was given the Welsh portfolio. In that sense, his appointment is an insult to Wales and the Welsh people. We are now represented in Cabinet by its most junior member—a man without experience or qualification, credibility or mandate, who owes his very seat at the Cabinet table to the political caprice of the most incompetent Prime Minister in living memory.
  90
  Today's debate is a clear and early sign of the right hon. Gentleman's unsuitability. One thought above all should inform his judgment: neither he nor his party govern with the consent or the authority of the people of Wales. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman of all people should now be determined to work with the grain of Welsh opinion. However, his very first contribution on the Floor of the House as Secretary of State for Wales is to seek to remove from Welsh Members of Parliament the right to involve themselves with Welsh legislation.
  The right hon. Gentleman has some redeeming features. When asked on Radio 4 for one good reason why he should be appointed as Secretary of State for Wales he said, "I like Wales." On HTV he went further and admitted that he had even visited Wales. Even some of the Tory party faithful in Wales have now rallied to his side. Eric Howells, showing that deftness of touch, that cutting intellectual edge that we associate with Welsh Tories, said that Wales was "only 23 motorway junctions" down the M4 from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Secretary of State might not have met Eric Howells yet —he is a Welsh Tory bigwig.
  I am afraid that any good will that the Secretary of State may have enjoyed has been squandered tonight. It will be a long time before the Minister of State, Wyn O Fôn, recommends the addition of a new Druid, Sioni Coed-Coch, to the Gorsedd of Bards. I do not know about Sioni Coed-Coch, but I know about Sionis, and we in the valleys know when we have a Sioni before us.
  Standing Order No. 86 is clear and its intention is precise. Some 86 years ago the House of Commons resolved that public Bills relating exclusively to Wales should be referred to a Committee constituted so as to include all Members with constituencies in Wales. The Welsh Office has argued in the past and the present Secretary of State argued today that paragraphs (1) and (2) are contradictory, so the entire Standing Order should be set aside. That was the argument advanced almost 12 months ago to the day by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
  This morning I spoke to the Clerk of the House and his colleagues. Their interpretation is clear and their advice is that paragraph (2)(ii), which states:
  "for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to
  Wales, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales",
  overrides any other provision such as that relating to the Committee reflecting the composition of the House. That is the advice of the Clerks of the House—
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Refer to the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Davies: The mechanism for resolving that problem is not, as suggested by my hon. Friend, to refer the matter to the Attorney-General, but to refer it to the Committee of Selection so that it may adjudicate. However, the Secretary of State rejects the advice from the Clerks of the House and does not have sufficient confidence to put the issue before the Committee of Selection. There can be no basis for the motion other than the Government's stubborn refusal to acknowledge their own weakness in Wales.
  I have four arguments against the motion. First, the view of the House in 1907 was clear. Standing Order No. 86 has stood the test of time. Not once has any attempt been made to amend it. The motion breaches a convention

  91
  to which all parties have subscribed for 85 years, and no good argument has been advanced for breaching the Standing Order tonight.
  Secondly, even if there were an inconsistency, as the Government have argued, surely the logical action would be to set aside those parts of Standing Order No. 86 that conflict with the rights of Welsh Members and restore Welsh Members' rights as enshrined in Standing Order No. 86. That is at the heart of the debate. It is beyond dispute that the Welsh Language Bill applies exclusively to Wales. The Government are now not only giving themselves a majority on the Committee, which is at least understandable if not acceptable in the current circumstances, but deliberately removing the right from half of all Welsh Members—all of whom are Opposition Members —to have any say in the detailed deliberation on a Bill with direct and specific relevance to their own constituencies.
  The Bill contains provisions relating to the cultural inheritance of all of us in Wales, whether English or Welsh speaking, the civil liberties of many of our people and the education of all of our children. The development of the Welsh language, influenced as it is by geographical experience, past prejudices and present campaigns, can be a powerful, emotive and divisive issue with the potential to affect us all. It is an abuse of power and a travesty of democracy for Welsh Members of Parliament who seek to represent the views of their constituents to be prevented from so doing by a Secretary of State who is currently little more than an apparatchik.
  It is no good arguing, as we have heard today, that the provisions have been set aside before. My third argument against the motion is that, with only one exception, whenever Standing Order No. 86 has previously been suspended, it has been with the agreement of the Opposition, and one of two sets of circumstances has applied. Either the measure to be considered in Committee was of a non-controversial nature, such as the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Act 1983 and the Caldy Island Act 1990, or it was set to one side by a Labour Government with the agreement of the Opposition for the particular purpose of facilitating that Opposition. That was done in the case of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976. Those precedents are clearly not relevant to the business before us.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman will agree that, in those cases, even when there was agreement with the Opposition, the process was carried out with the approval of the House, which is what really matters.
  Mr. Davies: That is precisely my point, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it for me. Today the Opposition's support is being withheld. In the case of the 1975 and 1976 Acts, the setting aside of Standing Order No. 86 was done not merely with the agreement of the Opposition, but specifically at their request. The fact is that there were not enough Conservative Members representing Welsh constituencies to man the Committee. That is why they wanted the Standing Order set aside—so as to provide an Opposition spokesman. It is no good the right hon. Member for
  92
  Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) saying that that should be taken as a precedent. There is no precedent, and we bitterly resist the motion.
  I hope that my exchanges with the Minister have made clear the fact that we do not regard the Acts of 1975 and 1976 as precedents. It is true that the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading, but there is common ground among all the Opposition parties about many matters of detail in the Bill, and common disagreement about them with the Government. I refer, for instance, to whether the Bill's provisions should apply to privatised utilities. It is inevitable that some matters will be pressed to a Division —hence the precedents of the non-controversial Bills of 1983 and 1990 are not relevant.
  The one exception, mentioned earlier, was the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which was taken 12 months ago almost to the day. That measure was opposed in Divisions, but even so, the circumstances were quite different. That Bill was itself a precedent, being a private Bill that was later converted to a public Bill. There were differing views, held across all parties, on that Bill's merits, and it was highly localised in its application.
  No such factor applies here. On the contrary, the Welsh Language Bill directly and exclusively affects the constituents of every Welsh Member, and there is a consensus among 32 of the 38 Welsh Members of Parliament. Surely these are the precise circumstances in which Standing Order No. 86 should apply?
  Fourthly, the Secretary of State said that the Standing Order did not refer to the Welsh Grand Committee. I have to correct him: as he will know by now, Standing Order No. 86 specifically refers to that Committee:
  "Save in the case of—(a) the Scottish Grand Committee. (b) the Welsh Grand Committee".
  All Welsh constituency Members are entitled, as of right, to sit on the Welsh Grand Committee. There is widespread agreement that its proceedings need to be reviewed. The previous Secretary of State conducted his own review, and the present Secretary of State said tonight that he would decide the course of that Committee.
  If the new Secretary of State takes this arrogant and abrasive line on the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee, he will come rapidly unstuck. The Welsh Grand Committee belongs to Welsh Members of Parliament; it is not the plaything of the Minister or of the Government Whips Office.
  Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to what I said, he would know that I said that my predecessor had conducted consultations with Opposition Members on this subject and was putting together his responses in the light of those consultations. It is in that spirit that I shall present the Government's conclusions, in addition to undertaking any other consultations that I think appropriate. I give the hon. Gentleman that promise. I hope that he will now remove from the record what he has just said, which went against the spirit of my remarks.
  Mr. Davies: I shall certainly not remove any remarks from the record. The Secretary of State's earlier remarks are on the record; he has now compounded his error by saying that the former Secretary of State prepared his proposals for the review of the Welsh Grand Committee in the light of representations made to him. He may have conducted a review, but its findings were certainly not made in the light of the representations made to him. They were made in spite of those recommendations.

  93
  The former Secretary of State conducted his review making it clear initially that he wanted additional powers for the Committee to debate, to question Ministers and to deal with legislation. The Prime Minister recognised the democratic deficit in Scotland and promised a review as part of the "taking stock" exercise. That review was to include Wales. What better demonstration could there be of the Government's honesty of intent, of their commitment to more democratic forms of government or of their willingness to recognise their minority status in Wales than that the Secretary of State for Wales should have invited comments on how more devolved Government could work and then acted on those suggestions?
  On 8 March in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff, and on behalf of a majority of Welsh Members, I made a public and precise suggestion to the Secretary of State which, if it had been accepted, would have obviated the need for this motion. If the Government were interested in greater democracy and consensual politics, my suggestion pointed the way forward for them. We would have agreed not to oppose the Bill's Second Reading, which could have taken place in the Welsh Grand Committee. We would have agreed a timetable for the Committee stage. We would have agreed not to force unreasonable amendments, knowing all the time that the Government still had the security to right any unacceptable wrongs, as they saw them, on Report.
  The Government's refusal to accept that suggestion was both unreasonable and myopic. The consequence is that Standing Order No. 86 has to be suspended, and many Welsh Members are excluded from detailed debate on the Bill. The Government's obstinacy provides a compelling reason for us to oppose the motion.
  We must ask ourselves why the Government are embarking on this course of action. It cannot be to protect their legislative timetable or to avoid damaging or wrecking amendments to the legislation. That would not be in the interests of Welsh Members. It is patronising to suggest that Welsh Members would pass amendments that would damage the interests of the Welsh language or the wider interest of Wales and our constituencies. In any event, we have offered adequate guarantees covering these matters.
  Why cannot the Secretary of State show a little more confidence, originality or initiative than his predecessors did? Why does the condescending, "we-know-best" mentality always have to take priority over flexibility, variety and political reality?
  The answer lies in the nature of the Conservative party —and in this Secretary of State we find that party at its most ideological. To avoid this motion, the Government would have to accept that new arrangements should apply to our parliamentary procedures, at least in so far as they affect Wales. They would have to be prepared to compromise and to work with the grain of Welsh public opinion. None of that is acceptable to the present-day Conservative party. Its members call themselves unionists. The Secretary of State used the word again this evening. In fact, Conservatives are members of a centralist party. Only a party so insecure about its own future and so uncertain of its purpose would feel threatened by diversity.
  As a former Trade Minister wrote in The Spectator last week, the Prime Minister heads
  "a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent and afraid of views different from its own."
  94
  That Minister was sacked for holding those views, yet his ideology is at one with the Secretary of State's. The one is sacked, the other promoted. That shows the extent to which the Government are in disarray; it is a clear demonstration of their incoherence. It is because the Government feel threatened that they want to set aside our constitutional arrangements for their own party political convenience—and Welsh Members will have none of it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that this is a procedural motion. I hope that Members will not be tempted to go off on to other topics relating to Wales.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I should like to join in the good wishes given to the new Secretary of State for his period at the Welsh Office.
  It is slightly puzzling to learn that a transfer to the Department of Employment is regarded as promotion for someone who was the Secretary of State for Wales. Many Welsh Members think that the Welsh Office warrants a senior Cabinet post. After all, the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for most aspects of Welsh life. He is a sort of viceroy in Wales, covering many Departments. It was surprising that the former Secretary of State, who was born in Wales, should have thought it right to be transferred to another Department to which many Welsh Members, had any of them been Secretary of State for Wales, would have been reluctant to move.
  The new Secretary of State will have been in the House for 10 years on Wednesday. [Interruption.] No, he will have been here for only six years on Friday. My mistake shows that he seems to have been here longer than we imagined. During those six years he has certainly shown himself to be clever. People in Wales have a sophisticated view of political life and enjoy their politics. To fulfil not only the expectations but the justified desires of the people of Wales during his term of office, he will have to show that he is not just clever but also wise.
  I hope that, in demonstrating the wisdom which I am sure the new Secretary of State wishes to show, he will be willing to listen to representations on issues that are very much alive in Wales and which were being considered by his predecessor. I refer in particular to local government reform, which has had a far from unanimous welcome, especially in rural mid-Wales, and to the desperate problems that will arise in some parts of the Welsh economy if rail privatisation results in the destruction of the Welsh rural railways.
  As you are moving towards the edge of your seat, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall now deal with Standing Order No. 86. It is regrettable that the Standing Order should effectively be suspended for the purposes of a Bill that could not be more Welsh. It is quite extraordinary that the Government should think it right that only two thirds of the members of the Standing Committee should be Welsh Members. More important, it is extraordinary that the Government should regard it as right that half the Welsh Members should be excluded from the Committee.
  Every Member representing a Welsh constituency has an interest of one sort or another in the Bill, and some of us have to represent conflicting interests in dealing with the Bill. It is vital that Welsh Members should be able to put

  95
  their views in Committee. The Government have not made a convincing case—they have barely tried to advance any case—for excluding Welsh Members.
  On what basis do the Government think that they can circumvent Standing Order No. 86(2)? Surely the words "provided that" are overriding, as suggested by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). If the Standing Order is not to be totally suspended for the purposes of the Bill, the Minister cannot override that proviso. The Standing Order makes it impossible for the consideration of a public Bill relating exclusively to Wales to take place without the inclusion of all Welsh Members.
  How do the Government propose to deal with the question raised in the earlier part of Standing Order No. 86(2), which states that, in nominating Members to a Standing Committee,
  "the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the qualifications of those Members nominated to the composition of the House?"
  I understand the Secretary of State's argument about the composition of the House—that needs no further explanation—but how does he expect the Committee of Selection to look at qualifications of non-Welsh Members who are to be nominated to the Committee if the motion is carried?
  What qualifications would the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, from whom the Secretary of State is understandably now taking advice, regard as appropriate? Will those who have lost Welsh seats and are now retreads representing English constituencies be regarded as suitably qualified? I doubt that you could properly be advised, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is a suitable qualification. Would somebody who was born in Wales or has a Welsh grandmother or is perhaps a supporter of Wrexham football club be regarded as qualified to serve on the Committee?
  Mr. Donald Anderson: What about someone who has a second home in Wales?
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting issue. Will knights of the shires who have cottages in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) be regarded as qualified? I raise this as a serious issue and seek a serious answer. How will the Committee of Selection approach the problem?
  Mr. Rod Richards: What difference will the suspension of Standing Order No. 86 make to the representation of Welsh Liberals on the Committee?
  Mr. Carlile: That is a thoroughly insolent point and all that I would expect from the hon. Member from Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). He has made insults an art form in the House, but a tedious art form. Perhaps we may return to the issue under debate, which concerns me as the sole Welsh Liberal Democrat Member but which obviously does not concern the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West. He will be the first Welsh Conservative Member to go at the next election. Obviously, he is perfectly satisfied to have Wales under-represented on the Committee, and his constituents should know that.
  The people of Wales take this issue rather more seriously than the trivial, tiresome and irritating hon.
  96
  Member for Clwyd, North-West. They should be aware of his complete contempt for the interests of the people of Wales—a surprising contempt for a Welsh speaker. The hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading was deeply disgraceful and disappointing. Welsh people should know that he is prepared to see Wales sold short, at a democratic discount, in debates on the Bill.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to address the more serious points on Standing Order No. 86. He owes the House an answer, if he has one, and I look forward to hearing it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Wigley.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understood that our procedures allow for hon. Members to be called from alternate sides. Why should two Members in succession be called from the Opposition side? I do not challenge the fact that you called the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), but why do not Conservative Members have the guts to seek to take part in the debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a somewhat spurious point of order, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman has put over his point.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I could see that you had little option but to call someone from the Opposition Benches, as nobody from the Government Benches was standing, as far as I could see, but there we are. No doubt the massed ranks of the Conservatives from Wales will come into battle at some stage to defend the new Secretary of State.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Might it not just be possible that even Conservative Welsh Members are not prepared to defend the indefensible and are uneasy about it?
  Mr. Wigley: I can well imagine that Tory Members feel 'considerable embarrassment at the way in which the order is about to be gerrymandered by the House tonight and about the fact that the Minister of State, Welsh Office has been passed over once again for the position of Secretary of State for Wales.
  In the past, I have found it necessary to call "I spy strangers" when I have seen strangers in the seat of the Secretary of State for Wales. I shall forgo that tonight in the interest of the time that we have left, but once again we see a Secretary of State for Wales who did not fight the last election in a Welsh constituency, who, by his own admission, does not have a great background of detailed knowledge about Wales and who comes to tell us in the first debate that the rules of the House must be amended to meet the convenience of the governing party and his convenience as Secretary of State.
  However, I wish him well in his tenure of office, as the powers that he has are immensely important to my country. In the same way as we co-operated, where it was possible to do so, with his predecessors, we shall always do so where the interests of Wales are concerned—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the hon. Gentleman, but it is very difficult to do so. I trust that hon. Members will listen in silence. In particular, I expect those on the Front Bench to set a good example.
  Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to some extent this is an argument within the family and I think that I understand the point that was made: that when we debate Bills—potential Acts —which specifically, totally and uniquely deal with Wales and its needs, we are talking about matters within the family. Those who are within the family know best what is required.
  The motion highlights the inability of our system of government to pay attention to the needs and political priorities of the people of Wales, expressed through the ballot box, while at the same time abiding by the conventions and requirements of the governing party in Westminster. The two are mutually contradictory. That is the background to the standing order. As has been said, it was passed in the first decade of the century, following the 1905 general election, when the Conservative party did not win a single seat in Wales. Every seat was held by the Liberal party, with one exception—Keir Hardie. the first Labour Member of Parliament for Merthyr Tydfil.
  In the 120 years that we have had democratic representation in Wales, the Conservative party has never had the majority of Welsh seats. The standing order was introduced to meet the need to adapt the system of this place, were that possible—tonight we are beginning to realise that it might not be—to meet those different requirements in Wales and its different political values, aspirations and priorities. At that time, there were debates about setting up educational and health institutions in Wales to meet the needs of the people and there was a raging debate about the disestablishment of the Church in Wales—a debate that England is catching up on now. Against that background, it became clear that it was necessary to have a structure that would allow us at least some modicum of decision-taking on an all-Wales level as representatives elected from Wales.
  We find now, as we would have found in that debate, and for a large proportion of this century, that it is not possible for the priorities of the people of Wales to be accommodated within the system of government that we have here. I personally, and my party, believe that that is impossible. This place will never adapt itself in a way that allows the people of Wales to take meaningful decisions at a significant level. Some colleagues believe that it might be possible, but what we are seeing tonight is a denial of that.
  It would have been possible, by living with the implications of Standing Order No. 86, for Welsh Members of Parliament to consider the Bill, whether that were achieved by amendment of the maximum of 50 Members on the Committee, or through agreement whereby the Committee was scaled down in a way that reflected the balance of parties among Welsh Members of Parliament rather than the balance among all Members of Parliament. Another way to safeguard the justifiable interests of hon. Members representing different parts of Wales, where circumstances are immensely different, would be to allow a larger Committee.
  A Committee on which a majority of Welsh Members of Parliament served, and therefore a Committee with a majority of Members against the Government, would have agreed to amendments that would not be acceptable to the
  98
  Government. So what? If the majority of the people of Wales want those amendments, and that desire is expressed through their democratically elected representatives, why on earth, even for that limited period between Committee and Report, could not that be shown in the constitutional mechanisms of the House? The Government's majority could overturn those amendments on Report, but the people of Wales would at least know the wishes and aspirations of their representatives. That hope will be snuffed out.
  We shall now have a Committee on which all Welsh Conservative. Members of Parliament will serve, along with nine Conservative Members representing constituencies outside Wales. No doubt they will sit in the Committee taking not a blind bit of notice of what is going on except to vote for the Government where necessary. The Government will thereby get their majority.
  All that shows that, whatever consideration the Secretary of State had in mind when he spoke of adjusting and amending the form of the Welsh Grand Committee, it was nothing more than froth. Unles he is prepared to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to take a meaningful decision in an all-Wales context, and that Committee has a majority of Opposition Members, any tinkering will be meaningless. If he allows that, why is he not allowing Welsh Members of Parliament to have a real voice in the consideration of the Bill, which is specific to Wales more than anything else could ever be?
  The Secretary of State may or may not be aware that 84 per cent. of my constituents speak Welsh as their first language. That is the pattern in some of the north-western and south-western parts of Wales. In other parts, such as Newport and Gwent, the percentage is small. The circumstances vary enormously from part to part and even within counties—for example, within Dyfed, between Ceredigion and south Pembrokeshire.
  Mr. Rogers: So as to demonstrate the unanimity among hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches, will the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the Labour-controlled English-speaking areas of Wales, the greatest advances in the Welsh language have been made in the education system over the past 20 years, and that an enormous effort, has been made in the development of Welsh schools?
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have paid tribute before to people like Llew Heycock and the work that he did on the old Glamorgan county council. What he says is true of some Labour-controlled parts of the valleys. In other parts, it is regrettably not so true. For example, it is not as true of West Glamorgan as it is in Mid Glamorgan. He will know that from the demonstration that took place last week in the Eisteddfod. I hope that we shall see progress now in West Glamorgan.
  The point is that circumstances vary greatly from area to area. That is what requires hon. Members from all parts of Wales, from Gwent and Gwynydd, and Clywd and Dfyed and every part within them, to serve on the Committee considering the Bill.
  The feeling that has been expressed in Wales, across party boundaries and across the language divide, is that the Bill does not go as far as people had hoped it would. There are questions about status, about the way in which the Bill will impact on bodies that have been privatised or that will be privatised and about the way in which the langauge is used in the courts. Those are genuine

  99
  arguments that need to be advanced in the light of the experience that comes from Rhondda, Cardiff, Swansea, Merthyr, Llanelli, Pembroke, Denbigh, Carmarthen, Newport and all around. Wales is a patchwork of different experiences; it is a whole network of small communities. Each of the voices representing them should be heard in the Standing Committee.
  To stand heavy on the rule tonight is not just to gain a slight political edge for the Government's convenience over the next few weeks. They will undoubtedly get their way in any case. What is happening tonight is a portent of the Government's attitude. I put it to the Secretary of State, in the strongest but kindest way possible, that, if he is to play a constructive part in the future government of Wales—there is a vacant role for statesmanship in building the structure of government in Wales, both locally and at the all-Wales level—what is happening tonight is a singularly bad way to start off down that road. I appeal to him, even at this late stage, to think again and to put the interests of Wales first on this occasion.
  9 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) by posing this question to the Secretary of State —what would he lose by yielding to the overwhelming opinion of Welsh Members tonight? He would not lose anything of substance because, as he knows, on Report he could easily reverse any decisions with which he did not agree. Certainly, if he were to so yield it would be a symbolic gesture to the House that he was prepared to do his best to come into the tribe, to listen to the great consensus in our Welsh parties and not to try to impose some neo-colonialist view on us. I wonder whether, even at this late stage, he might ask himself, "Would I really lose anything by yielding? Would I not certainly gain something were I to show a willingness to listen?"
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on his speech. I say warmly and with sincerity that it was by far the best speech that I have heard him make in the House. It was extremely well researched and powerful. It is a tremendous credit to him.
  The people of Wales wish the Secretary of State well. Why? It is because, whether or not we like it, he is the advocate of Wales in the Cabinet and if he does not do the right job for Wales we will all suffer. He did bring one welcome new quality—although only one—to the debate, and that was brevity. I wonder whether he will continue in that vein. I ask him and his colleagues to ask themselves whether, in the light of the overwhelming consensus against this procedural motion, they should not feel a little uneasy at what is being done tonight. It is wholly insensitive.
  The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that he is and has always been a unionist. However, certain things might be done in the name of unionism which would be wholly contrary to the interests of unionism. He will unite all Wales against him if he persists with this stubborn and obstinate course.
  I wish to make two points about the motion. First, in my judgment the debate raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy and style of Government. I would be out of order were I to make the proper points about the
  100
  lack of support in Wales for the governing party. The Government are, and will always remain, a minority in Wales, so it behoves them to deal with the affairs of Wales with constant and continuing sensitivity. Otherwise, the consequences will be counter-productive to the policies that they espouse.
  There was great anger in Wales at the news of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment as Secretary of State for Wales. It was not because anyone had anything against him personally; with great respect, few knew him personally. He is known as a person of immense natural ability and intellectual stature, who served in the private office of the former leader of the Conservative party. However, the right hon. Gentleman has no experience of Wales. For him, Wales is wholly unknown territory.
  It would be a great feat of imagination to comprehend the Secretary of State understanding the tribal emotions and sensitivity within Wales. At least his predecessors not only had personal contacts with Wales but were on the wet wing of the Conservative party. Therefore, their prejudices were more likely to be in the grain of Wales. The Secretary of State knows well that he comes with an image of being very much on the dry side of his party, against public expenditure and in favour of privatisation. All are policies that have no relevance to Wales and are likely to harm it.
  All right hon. and hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have something direct and relevant to say from their own experience, background, and occurrences in their own constituencies in relation to the Welsh language. Some will be denied the opportunity to make that contribution. That is anti-democratic. Right hon. or hon. Members representing Welsh seats will be denied—
  Mr. Richards indicated dissent.
  Mr. Anderson: Of course they will be denied that opportunity, because only a proportion of Welsh Members of Parliament will serve on the Committee. Welsh Members with something legitimate to say on the subject of the Welsh language will be denied that opportunity in Committee, during detailed consideration of the Bill—but there will be parachuted into the Committee people who have nothing to contribute and who will be there simply to ensure a Government majority.
  Mr. Redwood: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the purpose of Second Reading, Report stage and Third Reading is to give just such an opportunity to right hon. and hon. Members who do not serve on the Committee to participate in deliberations on the Bill? In a large parliamentary party such as the Labour party, do not colleagues work together so that the best arguments and points are marshalled in Committee? That is the duty of a democratic Opposition and I look forward to receiving the benefit of that advice and of those viewpoints in Committee.
  Mr. Anderson: I represent a unique constituency—Swansea, East—and would not want to delegate my views to any of my colleagues, however much I respect them. Also, I do not want to give the Secretary of State a constitutional lecture, but he knows that the Report stage may be relatively short and that there may or may not be a Third Reading debate. It will be in Committee that detailed consideration of all the important matters will be given. The Secretary of State is misleading the House if he thinks that, by excluding from the Committee a number of

  101
  Welsh Members of Parliament who have a proper interest in the Bill, he is advancing in any way democracy in Wales or the cause of unionism that he purports to espouse.
  I am bound to concede that, in a unitary state. which we have, there will be occasions when the Government, because an item of legislation is essential, perhaps ideologically part of their programme, will insist that they have a majority throughout its progress. That may be true even of matters of particular relevance to Wales. They might include water privatisation, which figured largely in the Government's manifesto and which gives rise to clear party divides on an ideological basis.
  The Bill in question is not one such piece of legislation. It is almost Wales against the rest. There is a considerable consensus in Wales on the Bill and that was shown by the fact that there was no Division on Second Reading. The Government cannot draw an analogy with water privatisation, where they must use their majority, juggernaut-like, to get it through.
  Of course there will be differences, which will include such questions as whether the Post Office—or some other utility moving from the public to the private sector— should take with it the obligations placed on it under the Bill. If so minded, the Government could reverse such matters on Report. Far more important, however, is the
  102
  fact that the only argument against imposing the "burden" of the Welsh language obligations on the private sector —including privatised utilities, and utilities that will move from the public to the private sector in future under the present Government—is that those obligations lay a burden on the industries involved which might deter investors and provide a disincentive for jobs in Wales.
  If that is the Secretary of State's argument, let me give him my answer. First, we in Wales might see a different balance between economic interests and the interests of the language. Why not listen to the consensus that emerges from Wales? Secondly—this, too, is a fundamental argument—if retaining the language obligation on companies moving from the public to the private sector may put jobs at risk, should not we in Wales decide the matter, rather than having it imposed on us by an artificial majority in a Committee set up by the Government?
  When Britain confronted countries in the old Commonwealth that sought to move from a colonial to an independent status, the cry from any of the old leaders was, "Please allow us the democratic right to make our own mistakes." If ours be mistakes—and I do not concede that they are—will not the Secretary of State and his Unionist majority allow us in Wales to debate the issues and, if necessary, "make our own mistakes"?
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I was going to address a few personal words to the new Secretary of State, but he seems to have disappeared for the moment.
  If Standing Order No. 86 was designed to do anything, it was designed to accommodate precisely this sort of Bill. There is no clear party divide on the Bill; indeed, if we had the chance to establish a Welsh Grand Committee, we should discover a good many cross-party currents, and a good many differences and nuances in where each of us would stand on any issue. It is absurd to table a motion such as this in relation to a Bill for which the Standing Order was perfectly designed way back in 1907. Why not give the chemistry of the Welsh Grand Committee a chance to work? I do not believe that a Whip would be imposed: even the Opposition would not dare to impose one—certainly not with me on the Committee, because I have my own views about the balances and sensitivities involved in a Bill of this kind.
  Sadly, I fear that there will be a party political divide if we consider the Bill in an old-fashioned Standing Committee of the kind that we have all suffered—and, at time, enjoyed—when party lines are drawn. Inevitably, if the Government draft in ill-assorted Conservative Members, the aggro will start and the Committee will be diverted to party battles. There is no place or reason for such battles on a Bill such as this. There could be discussions within our parties and also cross-party debates.
  Has the Secretary of State for Wales read the debates on the Bill in the other place? They are the saddest debates that I have read for a long time. Lord Cledwyn, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas did not advocate radical change. They did not make huge demands on the Government to change the Bill. Theirs was modest and moderate advocacy. However, the reply of the fourteenth English earl, Lord Ferrers, a Minister of State, Home Office, was absolutely wooden and insensitive, although the points made to him by many Members of the other place had been put sensitively to him.
  That shows why this House should handle the Bill in a different way. We do not want a repetition of what happened in the other place: wooden responses from Ministers, backed up by members drafted on to the Committee for no reason other than that they have to fill it up and form the majority.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I rise to defend the speeches made by my noble Friend in the other place. They proved sufficiently satisfactory for the other place to divide only once.
  Mr. Rowlands: The Minister of State has been around for too long. There is a civil service appointment of permanent under-secretary. There is now a permanent Minister of State in the Welsh Office. This is a new creature. Footnotes to British constitutional practice will be written, based upon the Minister of State's tenure of office.
  I led a deputation from Aberfan and Merthyr Vale. I shall not go into the details, but Lord Ferrers is one of the politest men I have ever met. The women in that deputation left the meeting shaking their heads. They did not believe that such people still existed. The Minister of
  104
  State tempted me into making that observation, but it is true. The Government's defence in the other place was put forward by the fourteenth English earl. His reply suggested that the Government had handed us a great gift; how dare we ask for more?
  We cannot afford similar debates in our Committee stage. There are certain debates where the party lines are drawn—for instance, on the Welsh economy, education and so on—and where the outcome of the debate, if not the vote, is known. In this case, we genuinely do not know the outcome of the debate. If I am given the chance to serve on the Standing Committee—although I should love to serve on a Welsh Grand Committee—I should welcome the opportunity to find out where we stand on the way that the Welsh language will be promoted and developed.
  According to the 1991 census, in communities such as mine, only 8 per cent. of the people speak the Welsh language. However, 15 per cent. of the younger generation speak Welsh. All sorts of interests could be debated. That will not happen, however, in a Standing Committee of the kind that the Government want to force upon us.
  Why not have a Welsh Grand Committee? Why not let the chemistry of that Committee work? If the Government do not like the outcome, they have the power, on the Floor of the House, to reverse the Committee's decisions on Report. However, they would at least have to defend the reversal of those decisions, unlike the sad and sorry story in the other place.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the excellent debate in which many of my hon. Friends have made telling speeches. There has been a terrific consensus between the 32 of the 38 Members of Parliament with Welsh constituencies and perhaps some sympathy from one or two Conservative Members, although they have been noticeably quiet today. We have heard only one intervention from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). As usual, the Conservatives do not have the courage to defend the Government. The Government are taking away the democratic right of hon. Members who represent the various communities in Wales to defend and strengthen the law on the Welsh language.
  I echo briefly the congratulations and good wishes extended to the new Secretary of State. We know of his background, academic prowess, ability and vision, but I hope that he will temper the latter during the next few months or years in the Welsh Office. I hope that he will try to reach a consensus, because he will find that in Wales people want to work together for the benefit of all. If he can work with the grain rather than against it, we shall revise our opinion of him in due course.
  The great democratic deficit in Wales is shown up at every general and local government election. Wales is overwhelmingly left of centre, which causes problems under the rules of the House when it comes to setting up the Standing Committee. However, the interpretation of Standing Order No. 86 is clear—we should all have the right to participate in discussions about the unitary authorities when local government is reorganised and about the Welsh language. The counties of Wales all have very different linguistic backgrounds, and all 38 of us should have the opportunity to articulate our views. However, the Committee is to consist of 19 Welsh

  105
  Members of Parliament and, in addition, nine English Members who will not be able to understand the problems facing a minority language in an overwhelmingly English culture. It is clear that the English Members are merely Lobby fodder for voting.
  At the most recent sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee on 8 March in Cardiff, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), made it clear that he wanted to strengthen that Committee's powers. Two or three times in his speech, and in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), he almost threw down the gauntlet to us, asking us to help him strengthen the Committee's powers to make up for the democratic deficit. It is therefore very disappointing to learn that the Committee will be pushed to one side when we come to debate the Bill which deals with an issue that is overwhelmingly Welsh.
  Last year, there was only one sitting in Cardiff, whereas there are usually three or four. I believe that the Bill and any discussions on unitary authorities should be dealt with by the Welsh Grand Committee.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I echo the welcome given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Change is very stimulating. We have been lucky to have had a succession of excellent Secretaries of State for Wales. Although I am sure that all of us who are prepared to be open minded are sorry to lose David Hunt—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should refer to the right hon. Member for Wirral, West.
  Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt).
  It is an opportunity for a fresh approach. Labour Members have cast aspersions about the credentials that my right hon. Friend brings to the task that faces him. That demonstrates the arrogance of the left in politics, and especially the arrogance of the left in Wales, where there seems to he an assumption that only left-wing politics can be good for Wales. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will prove them wrong.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as left-wing arrogance to suggest that the wishes of voters should be taken into account and should be reflected in the composition of the Committee?
  Mr. Sweeney: Of course I do not. The wishes of the voters are being reflected in the composition of the Committee. It would be strange if the principle, which is commonly followed throughout the political system, that the party in government should have a majority when important decisions are to be taken were not followed in this case. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee, where there is also a built-in majority for the Conservative party, set that precedent. Conservative Members on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee who do not represent Welsh constituencies make an important and valuable contribution.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) suggested that it would be impossible for hon. Members
  106
  representing constituencies outside Wales to recognise the importance and contribution of minority languages. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been present when my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) spoke when this subject was last before us. My hon. Friend made an excellent speech in which he showed his understanding of how the Cornish language had fallen into disuse.
  It is important to have a good debate in Committee. I am sure that the three Labour Members who serve on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee feel that they are not denied any opportunity to express their views and that they have no difficulty in doing so. I am sure that other Labour Members, who are not members of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, have no difficulty in communicating to their colleagues and ensuring that their views are reflected.
  I had not intended to speak this evening, but in reaction to what has been said by Labour Members, I felt that it was important to say that I strongly support my right hon. Friend tonight.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: This debate is of great importance to some of us, although from the faces of Conservative Members, it seems to be a bit of a game for them. The debate is important to Labour Members because it brings together two specific elements. First, it is proposed to overturn a Standing Order that has been in existence since 1907, which was put there to measure and to safeguard the uniqueness of Wales in the unionist structure.
  The second element is the issue of the language. If there is anything that makes us in Wales feel in some way different—there is nothing wrong in being different—it is that the Welsh language exists and that many people speak it. I say that as a non-Welsh speaker. I am very proud to have been part of the process of retaining and developing the Welsh language as a county councillor, with the late Lord Haycock, who, as leader of Glamorgan county Council, was responsible for establishing Welsh language schools in south Wales. If it were not for people such as Lord Haycock, the Welsh language would have gone completely. Since then, many other local authorities have contributed to the language in south Wales in particular.
  Many colleagues in the Labour party have supported the development of the Welsh language, because we think that it is important. The two issues come together tonight, and they are of fundamental importance to us. I say to the Welsh Conservative Members that there are precedents for people who sell out their country, and, quite frankly, if they support the motion tonight they will be selling out Wales. They will sell out the language and the uniqueness of Wales—for whatever trivial purpose that they may construct. I do not know whether the Whips are putting pressure on the Welsh Office, but the Welsh Office ought to have enough guts to stand up to the Government Whips on this issue. The Conservative party and the Welsh Conservative Members are selling out the language and selling out Wales. They ought to have enough guts to vote against the motion tonight.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: We have heard many a fiery speech from Opposition Members tonight. That shows both the passion and the emotion with which the language has been and is regarded in Wales.
  I refer in particular to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the assessment of the legal position vis-a-vis Standing Order No. 86. I was disappointed to see that he was reading "Erskine May" earlier, because if the Government's position turns out to be true, "Erskine May" is irrelevant. That is the crux of the matter.
  This is the most important Welsh measure of the century. I echo the words of many Opposition Members who, although they are not Welsh speakers, have an equal stake in its development and an equal emotional attachment to the language. The language is at the very heart of the Welsh people. It is the true meaning of us as a people, and of our difference—"vive la difference" as was said earlier.
  The suspension of Standing Order No. 86 is in my view an insult to Welsh Members. This is not a political football, thank heaven. Only one hon. Member on Second Reading debased the argument and turned it into a political free-for-all. That hon. Member has left the Chamber following his two minutes' worth. That is nothing new.
  The matter is not a political football. I am sure that every Welsh person of every political colour should be able to respect the language and do his best to nurture it. The Secretary of State said earlier that he hopes that there will be a consensus in Committee—that the whole point of the Committee is for the exchange of views for the building up of a consensus. If that view is true, why should Standing Order No. 86 be suspended? What is the point in that?
  The suspension is an insult to our constituents. It is an insult to us as hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies, as was the fact that the Secretary of State last week went to Swansea on one of his visits—probably his second to Wales—but declined to make the 10-minute journey to the Urod national eisteddfod. That is the jewel in the Welsh crown and the largest youth festival in Europe. He did not want to go. That is how interested he is in the Welsh culture, and no doubt in the subject that we are debating.
  The Secretary of State must listen to what is said by Opposition Members. We represent the whole of Wales and we do not have a short-term political view of matters. We represent the people of Wales and we have their interests at heart. Their interests will be denied by the suspension of Standing Order No. 86. I believe that the Secretary of State has made the worst possible start and I trust that he will change his mind.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones rose—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a point of order about the motion which I would hope to put helpfully in the form of four questions, the first of which relates to the motion itself. Is it a motion for the amendment, repeal or suspension of Standing Order No. 86? The House is entitled to know whether it is such a motion.
  108
  If it is such a motion, what is its nature as such? With respect, it looks to me as though it might be a motion for suspending Standing Order No. 86, at least by implication. It certainly cannot be a motion for amendment or repeal.
  If it is a motion for suspension of Standing Order No. 86, is it in a proper form? It does not say in the text that it is a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86. If it is such a motion, has the requisite notice been given in accordance with the usual practice of the House?
  Finally, if this is not a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86, the House is entitled to know whether it is in order for us to pass a resolution that purports to override the proviso contained in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86.
  I submit that the answer to my first three questions can be encapsulated briefly in the sentence, "No, this is not a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86." If I am correct in that regard, how on earth can it be in order, without such a motion, for the Government to seek to pass a resolution which does indeed purport to override the proviso in paragraph (2)?
  Madam Speaker: To some extent, the hon. and learned Member answers his own question. It is not a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86. However, the motion is of course in proper form because if it were not I would not have accepted it for debate this evening.
  Mr. Carlile: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. if I may be permitted another brief go.
  If it is not a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86, how, without such a motion, can the House effectively dispose of the proviso in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86, which appears to be an overriding proviso governing the membership of Standing Committees relating to Bills which concern only Wales?
  Madam Speaker: When hon. Members consider the motion on the Order Paper, they have to determine for themselves how they interpret it. I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that the motion is in a proper and acceptable form. Therefore, hon. Members. must decide for themselves whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. They must then divide the House accordingly.
  Mr. Martyn Jones rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a pont of order? [Interruption.] I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman was rudely, or perhaps not so rudely, interrupted earlier.
  Mr. Jones: I was interrupted in a very gentlemanly way, Madam Speaker. I want to speak on the issue for a couple of minutes as I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate because I was away on a Select Committee visit.
  The issue is of such importance that all hon. Members within Wales should have the right to speak on it. By the turning over of Standing Order No. 86, the six Conservative Members for Wales will sit on the Committee as of right while fewer than half the Members representing the majority party in Wales—the Labour party—will sit on the Committee. That cannot possibly be fair. To ignore the Standing Order is an insult to Wales. It is comparable to the change in unitary authorities, which ignores the fact that we need a regional tier of government for Wales.

  109
  I shall not speak at length, because we have had much debate. All contributions have been made by the Opposition, apart from one small intervention by a Conservative Member. That shows the depth of feeling within Wales, within the majority party in Wales, and among the majority of Welsh Members.
  We have now finished weeks of debate on Maastricht, much of which was about subsidiarity. We have an opportunity for the Government to put subsidiarity into practice on this issue. Can we not do that? I join right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new position. I hope that he will choose to follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and put subsidiarity into practice and give Welsh Members of Parliament the right to discuss this item of Welsh business.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I advise the Secretary of State that I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred to the debate which occurred in 1907. My direct predecessor, Reginald McKenna, who was then President of the Board of Education, moved the Standing Order. It now falls upon myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends to defend the Standing Order. It has been continuously in force ever since that date and it has certainly stood the test of time. Except for today and last year in respect of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. it has never been the subject of controversy, challenge or debate.
  True, of course, it has been set aside by Government motions—the Secretary of State has indicated that—in respect of specialist and technical Bills such as those in respect of Caldey island and Conway tunnel and, in 1975, the Welsh Development Agency Bill, and the Development of Rural Wales Bill in the following year. However, those circumstances were wholly different from the circumstances that we are considering today.
  The move was never challenged in the 1970s. It was carried through by a system of consensus and agreement. If anything, the then Labour Government were helping the then Conservative Opposition to have better representation on the Committee. There was no conflict between what is and was a Labour Wales and a Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) said, the proportion of Welsh Members of Parliament who considered those Bills was about 14 out of 16. Today we are considering only 19 out of 28. That involves bringing in reinforcements—English Tory troops—to top up the Committee.
  Another point that has not been mentioned is that, back in the 1970s, many Labour Members of Parliament were also Ministers. It would have caused considerable difficulty had they served on the Committee. The most significant point that the Secretary of State made was that he absolutely rests his case on his interpretation of the Standing Order. However, we know that the provision that all Welsh Members of Parliament deal with Bills which are exclusively Welsh overrides everything else in that Standing Order. That is the crux of the issue.
  What makes the Government's attitude so eccentric and bizarre is that there is considerable consensus on the Bill in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and others referred to that point. There is an incontrovertible case for all
  110
  Welsh Members to take part in the detailed consideration of the Bill. It affects every part of Wales and every constituency in Wales.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen said, it does not matter whether 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of people in his constituency speak Welsh or whether only a small number in my constituency in Gwent speak Welsh. We all have a right and a part to play in deliberations on the Welsh Language Bill because of the burgeoning of Welsh-medium education, interest in the language itself and all the different attitudes that exist. Each of the 38 constituencies in Wales has a story to tell with regard to the Welsh language and its consideration by the Committee.
  Mr. Redwood: If there is this enormous fascination with the Bill, as I hope there is, why was it that only six Labour Members wanted to speak on its Second Reading? Why did other Members representing Wales not take advantage of that opportunity to make their speeches? Why is it that only half the Opposition Members for Wales have turned up for this important debate? Tonight is an opportunity for debate. Where are those hon. Members?
  Mr. Murphy: I do not think that this is the time or the place for the Secretary of State to talk about the number of hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It was only by accident that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) decided to speak.
  Mr. Sweeney: It was certainly not an accident. I had every intention of being present.
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman said that he never intended to make a speech in the first place, but perhaps his speech was not accidental.
  The Second Reading dealt with the principles of the Bill, which commands much consensus and agreement. There is an awful lot of difference, however, between Second Reading and the detailed consideration and scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. That is the time when every hon. Member representing Wales should be involved, and quite properly, in its consideration. Hon. Members who represent England may speak on Report. Two such Members spoke on Second Reading; one because his mother came from Aberavon, the other because he wanted to talk about Cornish. They can speak again on those matters on Report, but not—it is important to stress this—in Committee on the Welsh Language Bill.
  The real reason for today's debate is that the Government are simply afraid to entrust the Bill to a Committee in which they cannot guarantee a majority. Their behaviour is a combination of arrogance, uncertainty and panic. That was spelt out in the debate in 1907 when a Conservative Member said:
  "The representation of Wales is, for the most part, in the hands of one party."
  He meant the Liberals; today it is in the hands of the Labour party. Another Conservative Member said:
  "It would be impossible for a Unionist Government"—
  an interesting phrase, given what the Secretary of State said—
  "to entrust legislation to Grand Committees … because no Government would consent to send legislation to Committees on which they were in a minority."
  If the Secretary of State had told the House that that lack of a majority is the chief reason for his decision not to send the Bill to a Committee consisting of every Member

  111
  representing Wales, we would at least have understood the politics of that. The right hon. Gentleman has come up with the nonsense about the Standing Orders not providing proper or evident reason for sending the Bill to such a Committee.
  Despite the pitfalls and the holes in which the Government have got themselves in the past few weeks, they are highly unlikely to fall over a minor defeat on a minor amendment to the Welsh Language Bill in Committee. Even if they did, they would, of course, change the Bill on Report. Have they completely lost their confidence that they cannot trust hon. Members representing Wales to deal with a Bill concerning the use of Welsh language in their own country?
  The previous Secretary of State attacked the concept of devolution many times during and before the election. I am sure that the present incumbent will follow that practice. The former Secretary of State argued that he did not want devolution because the procedures of the House were such that there was no need for it. He said that we had the Select Committees, the Grand Committee and Welsh Question Time and asked why we wanted devolution. On 8 March in Cardiff he said:
  "In Wales, we have always considered ways to improve the structure of government … The government of Wales evolves constantly.
  I propose that I, as Secretary of State for Wales, should invite all the party leaders in Wales to discuss how the Grand Committee could develop, and to present ideas about how to proceed."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Comtnittee, 8 March 1993; c. 2–3.]
  This is the first opportunity that the House has had to consider such matters since March, and what a consultation and answer the Secretary of State has now given us. He has decided to bypass the Welsh Grand Committee to deal with the most consensual Bill on Wales to emerge for a decade. There was no vote on it on Second Reading, yet the right hon. Gentleman has still decided that that Grand Committee and all hon. Members representing Wales cannot deal with this Bill.
  Compare that attitude with what is happening north of the border in Scotland. At least the Secretary of State for Scotland has issued a White Paper, "Scotland and the Union: a partnership for good" in which he set out that he intends to enlarge the powers of the Scottish Grand Committee to consider legislation. He suggests that there should be Special Standing Committees that can take oral evidence on Bills. Would not that have been a good idea for the Welsh Language Bill? The Secretary of State for Scotland talked about those changes as emphasising the important role of all Scottish Members of Parliament.
  What a contrast such an approach makes with the grudging, laggardly approach of the Welsh Office and Welsh Ministers. They have not changed since the debate in 1907, when the opponents of Standing Order No. 86 said that they thought that it would lead to the break-up of the Union. Even the Minister of State was not present in 1907, but had he been there, he would certainly have been a Liberal. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, no Tories were returned in 1905.
  Another speaker in the 1907 debate said that behind the proposals of the Prime Minister lay a process for devolution. Would that that had been the case—instead of all the Government attempts to override the rightful position of Welsh Members of Parliament, there would
  112
  have been a proper Welsh Assembly in Cardiff to deal with the issues and consider the importance of the Welsh language.
  The abandonment of the modest Standing Order on a Bill that attracts support from both sides of the House is typical of a Government who reduce the role of anyone elected in Wales and choose, instead, to govern Wales on the basis of unelected, unrepresentative quangos. The Government are so terrified of any debate or criticism that they cannot allow Welsh Members to consider a Bill that has support in every part of the House. I suspect that few measures this Session will so graphically and vividly show up the weakness and continued arrogance of the Government, and I urge the House to vote against the motion.
  9.52 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for wishing him a few years in office [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Caerphilly looks at the Official Report he will see that he did so. Those good wishes were echoed by the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I must not forget the good wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney).
  As I listened to today's debate it seemed that there was still some confusion in the minds of Opposition Members about why the motion is absolutely necessary. That confusion prevails in spite of the clear reference in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the inconsistency contained in Standing Order No. 86. It simply is not possible to constitute a Committee that satisfies all three criteria of the Standing Order—a Committee that reflects the composition of the House, includes all Members representing Welsh constituencies, and does not exceed 50 members. However one tries to form such a Committee, one of those requirements will not be met.
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall not give way as I want to deal with the various issues raised.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that he had taken advice and been told that the representation of Welsh constituencies was the most important of the three requirements. However, that advice holds good only in so far as it is endorsed by the House. I am sure that that is right.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The independent, authoritative advice given by the Clerks of the House is that paragraph (2) overrides all other provisions—that is, the one conferring on all Welsh Members of Parliament the right to participate in the Committee. I hope that the Minister will accept that he is asking the House to judge between the Clerks' advice and his exercise of voting powers in the Lobbies. If the matter is to be tested by political division, of course he is right. Our argument is that, on any objective basis, the logic and proof of the past 86 years stands.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question about the precedents, which are undeniable. I refer to the Welsh Development Agency Act

  113
  1975 and to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, which was passed by a Labour Administration. The circumstances do not matter; motions similar to this one had to be agreed. By the end of this evening the House will have expressed its will that there should be a Committee as established by this motion.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret having to say this, but the Minister of State has clearly stated that Standing Order No. 86 is inapplicable to any Bill relating solely to Wales, because, he says, it is impossible to apply it to the present membership for Wales. That being so, is not the proper course for the Government to table a motion to amend or suspend the Standing Order, not to fiddle about and cheat their way around it as they are attempting to do?
  Madam Speaker: It is for the Minister to explain precisely what he means. I hope that that is what he is about to do—if he is given an opportunity.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The motion is quite clear: it begins with the words:
  "notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86",
  and it goes on to describe the kind of Committee that should be established.
  I remind the House that the motion relates to a Government Bill. I may not have been around in 1907, but I did read the debate to which the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) referred. It was the then hon. Member for Ashford who rightly said that no Government would consent to sending legislation to Committees on which they were in the minority.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly tried to tempt us into setting up a Committee in which we did not have a majority with the promise that only reasonable amendments would be tabled. Whether we could agree about what was reasonable is open to question, however. He said that we could correct what we thought wrong on Report. That is not a serious proposition for a Government Bill
  Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you now give the House a ruling on whether the Government motion is, in your view, an attempt to suspend Standing Order No. 86?
  Madam Speaker: The motion before the House is in order; otherwise, as I said earlier, it would not have been placed on the Order Paper. It is for Members of the House to decide the issue. I am sure that, if the Minister is allowed to pursue his case, he will explain precisely what the motion means, so that Members can decide for themselves on the issue.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: We are absolutely clear that. as this is a Government Bill, we should have a majority on the Committee.
  Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: No, because I have less than a minute left.
  We are quite convinced that this is the best way to deal with the Bill. There is no suggestion that the Government should not have a majority in Committee and, of course,
  114
  the Committee will represent the composition of the House. We could have had a smaller Committee but its size will ensure representation for the minority parties.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Welsh Language Bill [ Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. John Morris: The Minister spoke about the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 and said that they were precedents. I was the Minister in charge of that legislation and my recollection, which has been assisted by that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), is that the procedure followed then was to facilitate and assist the Opposition. It was not a precedent. I was generous in advising those who were in charge of the proceedings of the House. It is quite wrong to regard assistance for the Opposition as a precedent for what the Government intend to do.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's description of the circumstances surounding that legislation. I dare say that special circumstances attached to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 as well. That was implied by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). There have been cases since then, and it is an established fact that no Government can process their own Bill in Committee without a clear majority.
  I welcome the fact that there will be English Members on the Committee. I also welcome the participation on Second Reading of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). The presence of English Members on the Committee will reaffirm the fact that the Bill was promoted by the United Kingdom Government in support of the Welsh language, which is part of the British heritage as well as that of Wales.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for raising another one. You have listened with obvious attention to the Minister of State, who has explained with his usual care the thinking behind the motion. You always take great pains to protect the interests of Back Benchers. The motion, if passed, would exclude half the Welsh Back Benchers from membership of the Standing Committee, despite the provisions of Standing Order No. 86(2)(ii).
  The right hon. Gentleman has made quite clear what the Government are trying to do. He said honestly, as always, that Standing Order No. 86 is completely unworkable in present political circumstances in connection with any Bill that relates solely to Wales. He told us, by corollary, that what the Government seek to do can only be to suspend the operation of Standing Order No. 86, not in so far as it relates to the House in general but in so far as it relates specifically to Wales. That is akin to introducing a new Standing Order.
  If that is what the Government wish to do, surely the protection of Back Benchers and the good procedure of the House demand that the Government should table the appropriate procedural motion. I invite you to rule as to

  115
  whether this is, de facto, an attempt to suspend Standing Order No. 86 and, if it is, that the Government should table a procedural motion to that effect.
  Madam Speaker:The hon. Gentleman is an experienced advocate, but he must not try to interpret to me what the Minister has said. I listened carefully. I have also explained that the motion is in order. Therefore, it is for hon. Members, Ministers and Back Benchers alike, to determine, after what they have heard, how they should vote in the Division. If they wish to pursue the matter further, there are parliamentary channels open to them to do so.
  I have no alternative now but to put to the House the motion on the Order Paper, as I am required to do.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 243.

  Division No. 288]

  [10.05 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ancram, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cran, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Ashby, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dover, Den

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, Andrew

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowis, John

  Forth, Eric

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fry, Peter

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gale, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  Burns, Simon

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burt, Alistair

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butler, Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  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)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Congdon, David

  Hague, William

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  116

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Norris, Steve

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hannam, Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Harris, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Paice, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Pawsey, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Horam, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, John

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

  Richards, Rod

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knox, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lidington, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lightbown, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sumberg, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maclean, David

  Sykes, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Madel, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Malone, Gerald

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Marland, Paul

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

  Mates, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tredinnick, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Trend, Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Walden, George

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Ward, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Needham, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nelson, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Whitney, Ray

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  117

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Etherington, Bill

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Allen, Graham

  Fisher, Mark

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foulkes, George

  Ashton, Joe

  Fraser, John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Galloway, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Gapes, Mike

  Battle, John

  Garrett, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  George, Bruce

  Bell, Stuart

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Benton, Joe

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godsiff, Roger

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Betts, Clive

  Gordon, Mildred

  Blair, Tony

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gunnell, John

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

  Hall, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hardy, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cann, Jamie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Janner, Greville

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Darling, Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Denham, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dowd, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Enright, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  118

  McFall, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McKelvey, William

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rogers, Allan

  McLeish, Henry

  Rooker, Jeff

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooney, Terry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mahon, Alice

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Milburn, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Miller, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Spellar, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mudie, George

  Straw, Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Hara, Edward

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Olner, William

  Walley, Joan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wareing, Robert N

  Patchett, Terry

  Watson, Mike

  Pendry, Tom

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pike, Peter L.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wise, Audrey

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Worthington, Tony

  Prescott, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Radice, Giles

  Randall, Stuart

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Redmond, Martin

  Mr. Dennis Turner and

  Reid, Dr John

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  Rendel, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords] shall consist of twenty-eight Members, including not fewer than nineteen Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.

  European Community Documents
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No, 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  European Community Documents

    COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11011/92 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 1st April 1993, relating to the future development of the Common Transport Policy; notes that the emphasis on completing the Single Market and ensuring that it works properly, on subsidiarity, and on the promotion of sustainable mobility consistent with the principle of freedom

    119
    of choice, is in line with the Government's aims; and looks forward to considering further proposals arising from the White Paper in due course.

    CARBON ENERGY TAX
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7018/92 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by HM Treasury on 4th February 1993 and the Department of Environment on 14th May 1993, relating to carbon dioxide emissions and energy, SEC(92) 1996, relating to the energy consequences of the proposed carbon/energy tax, 8328/92, relating to cooperation between public utilities and auto-producers of electricity, 4182/93, relating to limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, 7847/92 + CORI, relating to limitation of carbon dioxide emissions through energy efficiency (SAVE programme), 7757/92, relating to promotion of renewable energy resources (ALTENER Programme), 7569/92 and 5705/93, relating to monitoring mechanisms for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and 7157/92, relating to limitation of carbon dioxide emissions and improvement of energy efficiency; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that the Community's action in these fields continues to take full account of United Kingdom interests.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
    Question agreed to.

  Statutory Instruments, &c
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  Statutory Instruments, &c

    RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
    That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on llth May, be approved.
    That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 11 th May, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
    Question agreed to.

  Law and Order
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10.19 pm
  Mr. David Evans: I am disappointed to find it necessary to take up your time, Madam Speaker—and the House's time—to bring to the attention of a Conservative Government the current problem of law and order. In my view, that problem has been caused by a succession of weak-kneed, pathetic Home Secretaries—not least the immediate past incumbent, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I will not detail the many examples of the lack of will demonstrated by those Home Secretaries; I will simply remind hon. Members of the scandal surrounding the lawlessness of criminals on the roof of Strangeways prison. Night after night, we had to witness on television the humiliation of the prison service, the police and—even more important, in my opinion—the law-abiding citizens represented by the Government and the Home Secretary of the day, who categorically refused to take the action for which the circumstances cried out. Those criminals should have been given 10 minutes to get off the roof, then a police marksman should have been told to knock them off one by one.
  We are told that borstals are to be up and running in three years' time; but my constituents want to know what we are going to do with these thugs at this moment. They want to know what will happen this afternoon, not what will happen in three years.
  In recent years, the chattering classes—especially that lot opposite—have generated new concepts, the effect of which has been to complicate and fudge previously simple and widely supported principles.
  Let us take the concept of security. I have always believed in the uncomplicated principle that the fundamental duty of any Government is to defend and protect their citizens: they must punish lawlessness to provide security. In the real world, evil, if it is allowed, will spread like wildfire. Security is about fighting fire with fire. It is a basic fact of life that some people only understand the language of force. To provide effective security, Governments must deter crime with the threat and, where necessary, the use of force.
  In the international arena, Conservative Governments have successfully followed the simple rule of security. It was a Conservative Government who sent British troops in to protect the Falkland islands; it was a Conservative Government who deployed British troops in the Gulf to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson; it was a Conservative Government who prevented the Communist bloc from transgressing the iron curtain with the threat of nuclear weapons. Despite all the whingeing and whining of the CND crackpots on the Opposition Benches, we stayed loyal to the tried and trusted principle of security, and, naturally, our way prevailed.
  In the international arena, Britain is a world leader in security. Sadly, that basic principle has not been adopted in the domestic arena; instead, our policy on crime has been hijacked by a bunch of woolly-jumpered, woolly-tongued do-gooders who come up with increasinly complex terms and theories. They sound persuasive and feasible on the surface, but in reality they are slowly but surely leading us to anarchy.

  121
  These silver-tongued softies would like us to believe that a law breaker is not a criminal, but a victim of society who should not be punished—God help us. The little yob has rights: he should be counselled and cosseted. The bleeding hearts have bent over so far backwards to protect the criminal that we have ended up with a social revolution on our hands. The results speak for themselves. We are now in a crazy situation: burglars and violent thugs merely receive cautions, while a young lad is jailed for whistling at a girl.
  The brother of the boy jailed for whistling—a Mr. Wayne Posell—is reported to have asked:
  "Has British justice gone mad?"
  He added:
  "How can my brother be sent to jail for whistling when drink-drivers and violent criminals are fined peanuts or let off with a few hours community service?"
  The answer is that we have allowed our crime policy to be fudged by those who live in a world of pink candyfloss: they would not know a criminal even if he bashed them over the head with a copy of The Guardian and drove off with their 2CVs.
  I shall not linger on the subject of car theft, as I know that it is a bit of a sore point with the wriggler from Monklands, East, the Leader of the Opposition, who recently had his chauffeur-driven Rover stolen. As Oscar Wilde might have said, to lose one's car is unfortunate, but to lose one's chauffeur-driven car is bloody ridiculous.
  My constituents feel far from secure. A wave of violence and theft has engulfed the country, and them. They feel that the Government have not done enough to tackle the problem. I agree. Crime has risen constantly since the second world war, in times of boom and bust. We have had a succession of Home Secretaries who have merely tinkered with the problem. They have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the flashy terminology and complex theories of the do-gooders.
  I hope that the new Home Office Ministers realise that community sentences have not only failed to tackle the problem but have increased it, by pursuing a conscious policy of diverting more and more hardened and serious. criminals away from custodial services and instead placing them on community sentences.
  By allowing these criminals to mix with young and naive first-time and petty offenders, the Government have created the wrong kind of role models for these impressionable youngsters, who will view these hardened and persistent offenders as living proof that they will not be punished if they carry on offending. Rather than a deterrent, community sentences are effectively encouraging youngsters to pursue a career in crime.
  Do not get me wrong. I am not advocating a policy of throwing every criminal into prison [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, for a start, it would cost the taxpayer a fortune, and for what? So that some law-breaking scoundrel can lounge around in a cell eating three meals a day—with access to television, games areas and a holiday camp atmosphere—and can have plenty of time to plan his next crime as soon as he is let out. Where is the punishment? Where is the deterrent?
  The Minister no doubt saw the article in the The Sunday Telegraph on 2 May. This is what it said:
  "Are you enjoying your porridge?"
  The article followed a circular that was sent to all prisoners, issued by the Home Office. Some of the questions included were:
  122
  "Is your supply of underwear adequate? Is the prison canteen sufficiently well stocked? Is the midday meal served at the right time? Is the food up to scratch? Is the prison clean enough, or is it dirty? Is it too hot, or too cold? Is it too noisy? Is it too quite?"
  That says it all. Then there are complaints that two in a cell is too many. I think that two in a cell is not enough. There should be more to a cell. And if they spend 23 hours locked up in a cell, so what?
  I hope that the Home Office will take heed of the public outrage. Community sentences are merely tinkering with the problem. They have been tried and tested, but they have failed. The alarming rise in crime tells us that many in our society believe that crime pays. Forceful measures are the only solution to this sickening spiral of lawlessness. We must return to the basic principle of security, where one must deter evil with the threat of force and, when necessary, with the use of force.
  Take the recent case of a young mother who was waiting in broad daylight for a bus in the Holloway road, one of London's busiest thoroughfares. Three black men bundled her into a car at knifepoint, took her to a cemetery, beat her unconscious and then raped her. What would be the use of locking up these animals at a cost to the taxpayer of £20,000 per year per prisoner?
  The only way to punish them is to ensure that they wish they had never committed a crime and guarantee that they could never do it again. The solution is castration. It would make the streets safer overnight. Such animals would think twice before doing it again. I am sick to death of the whingers who churn out nonsense about corporal punishment undermining the dignity of the individual. Who cares about the dignity of a beast? What about the dignity of the victim?
  A few weeks ago, two teenagers—Paul Chapman and Philip Barber—were given prison sentences. Chapman received 10 years for rape and Barber received eight years for abetting. They attacked Ethel Denyer, a 76-year-old spinster, while she was lying in her bed. She was repeatedly stabbed with a toasting fork, beaten with a chair leg until it snapped, throttled, punched and kicked. She was then raped. Chapman and Barber got away with £26. Ethel Denyer later died from the ferocity of the attack.
  Neither boy has shown a trace of remorse for the evil deed. Within an hour of the attack, the pair were seen laughing and joking in a kebab shop. During their three-week trial, they sat sniggering in the dock. What about the dignity of Miss Ethel Denyer? Those boys should have been flogged or cat-o'-nine-tailed—that would have wiped the smirks off their faces. They should have been castrated. Some people fail to grasp the fact that we are dealing with dumb and violent beasts who respond only to the law of force. Those two animals will be out of prison in five years, robbing and raping once again.
  Some people argue that capital punishment is never justified as it violates the human right to life but, without a death penalty, there is no effective way to distinguish a crime such as theft from a crime such as cold-blooded murder. Let us take the case of the ruthless murderer, John Edwards. In April this year, 22-year-old Maria Turvey was taking her seven-month-old daughter, Charlene, for a walk in the Fairley Hill estate in Luton. Edwards jumped out of a van, seized the baby from the buggy and threw her into the back of the van. He shot Mrs. Turvey in the head with a shotgun and later shot baby Charlene. Mother and baby were murdered by a maniac with a gun. Edwards

  123
  should not be given a prison sentence which he will spend lounging around with petty thieves. He should be hanged. All murderers should be hanged.
  The new Home Secretary has a history of supporting capital punishment, although I read only last week that —surprise, surprise—he is reconsidering his position. I hope that he is not to be added to the long list of Home Secretaries who funk the issue. I hope that he has the strength to overrule his Home Office bureaucrats and wishy-washy advisers and to return capital punishment to the British legal system. It would mark a triumphant return to the simple principle of security in the domestic arena, where criminals would be left in no doubt that, when they contemplate a murder or participate in acts such as armed robbery, which so often tragically result in death, their own lives are on the line.
  I have concentrated on the need to deter and punish crime. However, it is also important to identify and understand the origins and causes of crime. I believe that the problem we face today originates from a breakdown of discipline in society. Too many parents pay too little attention to their children. As a result, housing estates are littered with children roaming the streets long after dark, engaging in petty theft and vandalism and making a general nuisance of themselves. Why? Because their parents could not give a damn about where their children are or what they are up to.
  I wish to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) for supporting me in this debate on law and order.
  Finally, on behalf of my constituents of Welwyn and Hatfield. I do not want a wishy-washy, civil servant, Home Office reply to the debate. I should prefer the Minister to go away and then come back to tell the British people that the Conservative Government have the will and the heart' to look after their citizens in a way that they can take for granted, which enables them to go out at night, safe in the knowledge that they will not be mugged, raped or murdered; and that, on returning to their homes, they will find them as they left them and not, as so often happens now, find them ruined by someone whom the police have little or no chance of apprehending. I ask the Minister, are we going to protect our citizens—yes or no?
  10.34 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Yes, we are. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on raising the very important issue of law and order tonight. I am glad that he put his points across in his customary forthright manner, because he is articulating not just what his constituents say, but what the constituents of most hon. Members and millions of ordinary people throughout the country say. I have never seen the House so full for an Adjournment debate. That is a measure of the concern felt, certainly by Conservative Members.
  Crime and the fear of crime are rightly at the forefront of the public mind. It is essential that we give such an important issue our sustained attention and action. We are
  124
  concerned about rising crime. Crime is. of course, rising in all western nations;'it is not a uniquely British problem. Thankfully, violent crime is only 5 per cent. of all recorded crime. Some of the recent increases are due to more people reporting crimes that were previously hidden because we have encouraged them to do so. These are facts.
  My hon. Friend and all our constituents want to know what action we intend to take against those who threaten their lives, their families, their properties and their right to move freely about this country. I shall tell them, but I shall first briefly state some of the things that my predecessors have done, because my predecessors deserve credit.
  First, since 1979, we have increased the police force by 16,500 policemen. More officers are being put back on the beat. Since 1983, more than 6,300 officers have been released for other duties by bringing in civilian staff. Since April 1991, we have opened 12 prison establishments, creating 6,994 prison places. We have given the courts power to pass longer sentences to protect the public from violent and sexual offenders. We have increased the maximum penalties where we have found them to be inadequate.
  We have, for example, increased the maximum penalty for child cruelty from two years to 10 years, and the maximum penalty for trafficking in hard drugs from 14 years to life. For attempted rape, we have increased the maximum penalty to life imprisonment. We have acted against the so-called "joyriding" offences, introducing tough new penalties under the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 enables the Attorney-General to take action against excessively lenient sentences. We have also given the courts power to confiscate the assets of drug traffickers and people convicted of other profitable crimes.
  I say to my hon. Friend that all those actions are part of our strategy to bear down heavily on crime and to protect the innocent. The Government's commitment to taking action has been demonstrated by the plans announced by my predecessors to act against those who offend on bail, to deal with persistent juvenile offenders, to amend the sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 that have caused so much public concern and to raise the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving and drink-driving.
  The protection of the public, the detection and punishment of offenders and the prevention of crime will continue to be a top priority of this Government, of this Home Secretary and of this Minister of State. Tonight I take the opportunity to state my approach in tackling the problems of lawlessness in society.
  It is my profound belief that the honest citizen is entitled to a decent country in which to live and that it is the Government's duty to bear down hard on crime. People are crying out for Britain to be made safe for decent people. I intend to ensure that the system is on the side of the law-abiding, the honest and the decent. I tell my hon. Friend that I shall listen to the opinions of ordinary people who are afraid of crime and the victims of crime before I listen to the sociologists in their woolly jumpers with their theories on offenders.
  I do not want the police to become demoralised because the young offenders whom they catch time and time again are walking free and putting up two fingers to justice. We shall ensure that persistent young offenders who have not responded to community supervision do not walk free in future.

  125
  The House will be well aware of our plans to protect the public from those young criminals and their crimes. I can tell my hon. Friend and the whole House that the necessary legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to give the courts the power to sentence the hard core of persistent young offenders to a new secure training order.
  We must give the criminal no hiding place. We will ensure that the neighbourhood watch schemes are re-energised so that no criminal is safe walking down any streets. I want people working in partnership with the police and volunteering to be part-time special policemen and police officers so that every part of the country is covered by the eyes and ears of the vast majority of good, decent. honest citizens.
  Let us have no political nonsense about surveillance cameras being Big Brother. In public areas, they can help cut crime, and the public want more cameras and less crime, not the other way round. I therefore welcome the wish on the part of some local authorities to use surveillance cameras. They should not be deterred by concerns over the use and storage of tapes. I will address those concerns if they are genuine, because I do not want anyone to have an excuse not to use such cameras.
  Just as the criminals must have no hiding place, so I believe that we, the honest decent citizens, must come out of our hiding places. Why are we the ones hiding behind locked doors, afraid to go out? We can come out of our hiding places by confronting crime, reporting crime and helping the police.
  I particularly liked the words of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis at the end of last week. Talking about Operation Bumblebee, he said:
  'I want the burglar to start being frightened rather than the law-abiding citizen. I would like it to be the burglar who will he running scared, not ordinary members of the public. It is time for London to fight back."
  I say that it is time for all of us to fight back and we can start by backing the police and working in partnership with them, supporting them in their effort to protect our communities. If crime prevention is to be effective and long-lasting, we must all, as parents and neighbours, play our part.
  My hon. Friend called for hanging, flogging and castration—though not necessarily in that order. He knows my views. Personally, I regret the fact that the House rejected capital punishment by a large majority in 1990, but I must tell my hon. Friend honestly that I can see no prospect of the present House of Commons changing its mind, and that there is no point in engaging in a further debate on that issue in this Parliament.
  Corporal punishment also runs contrary to article 3 of the European convention on human rights—I know that that will not be good news to my hon. Friend—and it would be a fruitless exercise to try to reintroduce it. Of course, it is still right and proper for parents to administer reasonable corporal punishment to their children if they so choose.
  Action against crime must involve a criminal justice system that is seen to deal effectively with offenders. In the very near future, we shall be tabling amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is in Committee at the moment, that will let magistrates and judges have full
  126
  access to the past record of criminals. The courts can properly punish and deter only if they have the full criminal history and know whether or not criminals have responded to past sentences. That news will be welcomed by all Conservative Members.
  We shall also table amendments scrapping the over-restrictive unit fines system, which certainly did not work as anticipated. Our proposals will require magistrates fully to consider the means of an offender when imposing a fine, but will not contain a statutory mechanism for calculating the fine. It will be for magistrates to make full use of their discretion in determining the most appropriate fines in individual cases.
  We shall fulfil our manifesto commitment to get tough on those who persistently commit crimes while on hail for other offences, by inviting Parliament to agree to amend the Criminal Justice Bill to give the courts a statutory power to increase the length of sentence for someone who offends on bail. That was a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).
  We are determined to see such offending reduced to the lowest level possible. A prosecution right of appeal against the grant of court bail provides another important safeguard, and in that context, I note the good progress that my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) is making with his Bail (Amendment) Bill, which is now in another place.
  This tough action will probably result in more people in prison. Full prisons are of course a problem, but so are the empty streets because honest people are too afraid to go out. It should he the criminals who should be hiding behind locked doors, afraid to go out because they will be caught, or unable to get out because they are already in prison.
  I hope that I have given my hon. Friend tonight a flavour of the approach that I shall bring to this job. He knows that there are no easy solutions and that crime is constantly changing and evolving as criminals become ever more devious or brutal in the way they operate. That is why we must constantly make changes in our approach and try to get one step ahead of the criminals.
  I congratulate my predecessors in the Home Office on the action they have taken. If my predecessor as Member for Penrith and the Border, Lord Whitelaw, had not launched the biggest prison building programme and police recruitment drive this century, we would, to put it bluntly, be in queer street right now.
  As criminal behaviour changes, so our responses will change. However, the one thing that will not change is my determination to strengthen the position of the innocent and of the potential victims and victimss. We shall do that by listening to them and by hearing what they have to say. After all, they are our constituents—and the only reason that we are here. It is about time their voices were heard.
  As we introduce these new measures to take tough action on all aspects of law and order, I look forward to the continuing robust support of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, and of all my hon. Friends, in the Division Lobby.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Funds
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the number of dioceses which(a) paid and (b) were unable to pay their full quota to central church funds for each of the last 10 years; and if he will express (a) as a percentage of (b).

  Mr. Alison
  This is not a matter for the Commissioners; a diocese's quota to central church funds is payable to the Central Board of Finance. However, I understand that no diocese has been unable to pay its quota in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the number of parishes which were unable to meet their quota for each of the last 10 years; and if he will present these totals as a percentage of all parishes.

  Mr. Alison
  This is not a matter for the Commissioners; parish quotas are payable to dioceses and details are not held centrally.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement outlining the reasons for his policy of not appointing the spouse of a serving police officer to the magistrates bench; and what other categories of spouse are covered by this policy.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In considering the suitability of candidates for appointment to the lay magistracy the Lord Chancellor must have due regard to maintaining the perceived independence of the magistracy. Accordingly, his policy is not to appoint the spouse of a police officer. The Lord Chancellor's Directions for Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace, a copy of which is in the Library of the House (paragraph 4.21), sets out the other categories of spouse covered by a similar policy.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the anticipated cost of retraining magistrates in the light of the proposed changes to the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Statutory responsibility for providing training and retraining magistrates lies with the 105 magistrates courts committees in England and Wales. At this stage it is not possible to say what retraining will be required in the light of the proposed changes in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or to estimate its cost.

  Public Records
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what safeguards are in place to protect the confidentiality of public records should their administration be contracted out to private sector companies under existing market-testing proposals.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The existing market testing programme within the Public Record Office does not extend to the function of the administration of public records.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are 12 staff assigned to the market-testing programme in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The programme has cost £505,000 since November 1991. These figures include those engaged on the review of enforcement agents and their cost, as well as the costs of those consultants engaged to assist with managing the programme.

  The estimated future cost of this year's market-testing programme to September 1993 is £297,000.

  The firms of consultants used by the Lord Chancellor's Department since November 1991 to assist with managing the programme, and to assist in-house teams to prepare bids are:

  PE International

  AMTEC Consulting

  DM Management Consultants Ltd.

  Kyte and Co.

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Price Waterhouse

  MBA Consultants

  CCTA

  All firms were selected by competitive tender with the exception of CCTA which was appointed by single tender.

  Crown Courts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many recorded instances of violence have occurred in Crown courts in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of recorded instances of assaults on Crown court staff in each of the past 10 years is as follows:

  Number

  1983

  0

  1984

  1

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  0

  1988

  0

  1989

  3

  1990

  0

  1991

  0

  1992

  0

  1993

  11

  1 To date.

  3
  The only recently recorded instances of violence in a Crown court not involving court staff was one resulting in a fatality at Swindon combined court and a minor incident of assault at Chester Crown court. Both incidents happened in 1992.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost of building a new Crown court room.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The average cost per courtroom of Crown court building schemes completed within the last 12 months is approximately £2·5 million. It is not possible to assess the cost of building a new courtroom in isolation from the supporting facilities provided in the remainder of the building.

  Boundary Commission for Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will appoint the deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission for Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 20 April,Official Report, column 45.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the consultancy exercise involving the privatisation of water services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The consultancy study was commissioned under conditions of commercial confidentiality and it would therefore be inappropriate to disclose the information requested.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to change the system for charging for water services in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have already announced that they intend to introduce new charging arrangements and customer billing systems for water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland, thereby achieving a more direct commercial relationship between the Water Executive and those to whom it provides services. Work is going on at present to identify appropriate arrangements.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives he intends to introduce to encourage private finance into water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As the Minister of State for Northern Ireland said in his statement to the House on 20 April,Official Report, column 296, we are looking currently at the scope to introduce private finance into the provision of water and sewerage services. At this stage it is too early to say how this involvement will be secured.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Mates
  Under present arrangements, information on the cost of the market testing programme cannot be accurately determined across the seven Departments covered by the Northern Ireland programme, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There are four members of staff engaged full time in work relating to market testing; otherwise, staff in Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office contribute to the market-testing process as part of wider responsibilities.

  The following firms of consultants, which were selected using competitive tendering principles, have been used in connection with the Northern Ireland market-testing programme:

  BET FM Ltd.

  CAPITA

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Helm Corporation

  Leopold Joseph and Sons

  Logicom

  Michael Willacy Associates

  MVM Consultants plc

  SERCO

  Symonds Facilities Management plc

  Touche Ross

  Witt Thornton (Management Services)

  Terrorism
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what protest has been made to the authorities in the Irish Republic about the terrorist attack on Caledon RUC station involving the use of the Knockaginny footbridge; if he discussed this incident during the recent meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference; and what communications he has received from the Government of the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Mates
  It would not be appropriate to comment on specific terrorist incidents under investigation. However, cross-border security co-operation is a continuous concern of both the British and Irish Governments. At the most recent intergovernmental conference on 25 May, British and Irish Ministers restated their complete support for the efforts which the security forces north and south of the border are making to erode and defeat terrorism. Both Governments are determined to continue, and to enhance, their close co-operation on security matters with the aim of preventing attacks and bringing perpetrators to justice.

  Education
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take immediate steps to amend articles 5.6a and 156 (46.2b) of the Education Reform (NI) Order 1989 in such a way as to create the social and educational flexibility which will ensure that siblings born within the same year are not required to be treated as twins.
  5
  Mr. Ancram
  The arrangements for commencement of compulsory education are designed so that children can learn and be taught with their peers, with the articles in question setting the boundaries for each class. In any class there will commonly be a wide span of individual birth dates within the 12-month range. This operates satisfactorily and there are no educational grounds for a distinction to be made, in this respect, between children within one family.

  Housing
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which locations the Rural Housing Association has schemes under construction; and at which locations the Rural Housing Association proposes new schemes for the remainder of the year 1993, 1994 and 1995.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Rural Housing Association was registered in March 1992 and does not yet have any schemes under construction. It has, however, purchased nine houses under the special house purchase initiative announced in last year's autumn statement.

  The association has the following new-build schemes in its development programme:

  Year

  Eastern board

  Northern board

  Southern board

  Western board

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  Number

  WTE1

  District nurses

  31 December 1992

  473

  363·74

  150

  134·12

  161

  126·40

  125

  98·85

  31 December 1991

  421

  338·91

  147

  131·18

  144

  111·83

  118

  92·65

  31 December 1990

  344

  289·80

  154

  139·50

  87

  71·17

  116

  96·24

  Community midwives

  31 December 1992

  61

  57·45

  35

  31·13

  27

  23·65

  42

  41·75

  31 December 1991

  57

  55·95

  38

  34·16

  17

  14·39

  47

  46·50

  31 December 1990

  56

  55·75

  46

  42·53

  17

  16·60

  47

  46·50

  Health visitors

  31 December 1992

  231

  205·03

  92

  86·73

  90

  82·87

  78

  71·26

  31 December 1991

  217

  195·19

  91

  84·98

  62

  57·35

  78

  71·21

  31 December 1990

  121

  114·14

  91

  85·47

  61

  55·31

  80

  73·63

  Community psychiatric nurses

  31 December 1992

  107

  104·03

  20

  20·00

  39

  39·00

  28

  28·00

  31 December 1991

  86

  86·00

  21

  21·00

  2—

  2—

  37

  37·00

  31 December 1990

  80

  80·00

  12

  12·00

  2—

  2—

  36

  36·00

  1 WTE = Whole-time equivalent

  2 Information not available

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of private nursing home places available in County Fermanagh at 31 March.

  Mr. Ancram
  Four hundred and ninety.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the residents in private nursing homes in County Fermanagh at 31 March had been, within three months or less of their admission, residents of the Irish Republic.
  6

  dwellings

  1993–94

  Ardstraw (Strabane district council)

  6

  Glenhull (Omagh district council)

  6

  1994–95

  Feystown (Larne district council)

  5

  Ballinderry (Cookstown district council)

  6

  Teemore (Fermanagh district council)

  6

  1995–96

  Derrynoose (Armagh district council)

  6

  Cranagh (Strabane district council)

  6

  Health and Social Service Employees
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) district nurses, (b) community midwives, (c) health visitors, (d) community psychiatric nurses and (e) practice nurses are or were employed by health and social service boards in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on district nurses, community midwives, health visitors and community psychiatric nurses is available on a comparative basis only for the last three years and this is set out in the table. Information on practice nurses is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Western health and social services board estimates that at 31 March 1993 72 former residents of the Republic of Ireland were living in private nursing homes in County Fermanagh.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the health care obligations of the Western health and social services board and the Department of Health and Social Services in respect of those admitted from the Irish Republic to private nursing homes in County Fermanagh on or before 31 March.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Health and Social Services and the health and social services boards are responsible for the health care needs of all people who are ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland, regardless of their origin or date of arrival in Northern Ireland.
  7
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reciprocal provisions were available at 31 March in the Irish Republic, under EC regulations, of private nursing home accommodation and related health care for those previously resident in Northern Ireland or Great Britain.

  Mr. Ancram
  European Community regulations allow for health care to be provided to persons moving between member states. The type of treatment and, where appropriate, accommodation to be provided were, at 31 March, and still are, matters for the authorities in the state of residence. Under EC regulations there is an annual reconciliation of costs between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and this takes account of the cost of health care provided to state pensioners of one country who reside in the other.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many residents from the Irish Republic in private nursing homes in County Fermanagh at 31 March were discharged to these homes directly from Cavan general hospital or other hospitals in the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The Western health and social services board estimates that at 31 March 1993 21 patients had been admitted directly to private nursing homes from Cavan general hospital.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the total cost to the Western health and social services board and the Department of Health and Social Services of maintaining those admitted from the Irish Republic who were resident in private nursing homes at 31 March;

  (2) what has been the cost of general practitioner care involved in providing health care for those admitted from the Irish Republic who were resident in private nursing homes in County Fermanagh on 31 March.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the extent of hospitalisation required by those admitted from the Irish Republic who were resident in private nursing homes in County Fermanagh at 31 March; and what has been the cost to the Western health and social services board or the Department of Health and Social Services.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Western health and social services board estimates that for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 it cost £32,125 to treat in hospital patients from private nursing homes in County Fermanagh who had previously been resident in the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what special hospital equipment has had to be acquired or leased by hospitals in the Western board area in order to treat patients discharged from Cavan general hospital direct to private nursing homes in County Fermanagh; and what has been the cost.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Western health and social services board purchased a specialist bed at a cost of £752 for a person who had been admitted to hospital from a private nursing home in County Fermanagh. The person had previously lived in the Republic of Ireland.
  8
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what extra financial and other resources have been made available to the Western health and social services board for acute hospital, community and family practitioner services, in order to cater for elderly people from the Irish Republic admitted to private nursing homes in County Fermanagh before 1 April; and what future provision will be made.

  Mr. Ancram
  No additional resources have been allocated to the Western board specifically for the provision of services to such people. Within the total resources—including additional resources for community care—made available to the board for its resident population, it is for the board to determine how best to provide acute hospital and community services for the elderly people concerned. In so far as the provision of family health services is concerned this is demand led and funded accordingly. Future funding for the board will be determined in the context of the many competing demands on the health and personal social services resources at that time.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether European Community legislation obliges a unit of management, after 1 April 1993, to provide for and manage the health care needs of those admitted from the Irish Republic to private nursing homes in County Fermanagh, on or before 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Ancram
  Health and social services boards are obliged under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to provide health care to persons who are ordinarily resident in their areas, regardless of their origin or date of arrival in Northern Ireland. EC legislation does not affect this obligation.

  Elderly Population
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of persons over 65 years normally resident in Northern Ireland who live within the Omagh/Fermanagh unit of management catchment area; what percentage of Northern Ireland's over 65 years of age population this represents; and what percentage it is of the population within the Omagh/Fermanagh unit of management.

  Mr. Ancram
  The latest available information, taken from the provisional 1991 mid-year estimates of population, is as follows:

  Over-65s within the Unit

  Percentage of Northern Ireland over 65s

  Percentage of total population within the unit

  11,967

  6·4

  11·9

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charters
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants and others are estimated to be involved with the production and implementation of charters; and if he will make a statement.
  9
  Mr. Davis
  The charter approach is integral to the delivery of public services, so many civil and other public servants are involved with the charter programme as part of their normal duties. The citizens charter unit in the Cabinet Office has 32 staff.

  Performance Standards
  David Shaw
  38. Mr.To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what effect his work on setting and monitoring performance standards in Government are having on the people of Dover and Deal.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As a result of the citizens charter, the people of Dover and Deal—like people everywhere—now have published standards for their public services and better information about how these are performing.

  Open Government
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress made in preparation of his White Paper on open government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I hope to be able to publish the White Paper before the summer recess.

  Public Services (Complaints)
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to improve complaints procedures in the public services as part of the citizens charter.

  Mr. Davis
  We will shortly be announcing a citizens charter complaints task force with the aim of ensuring that all public services adopt the key principles of good complaints systems. People need to know how to complain and they must have confidence that their complaint will be dealt with quickly and fairly.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to place a statutory obligation on public services to operate a formal complaints procedure for service users.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no plans to place statutory obligations on public services in respect of complaints procedures. It is for individual organisations to ensure that their complaints systems conform to citizens charter principles. I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 17 March, when I indicated that we were going to establish a citizens charter complaints task force to encourage and support organisations in this aim. We will be making an announcement about this very shortly.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the complaints mechanisms for public service users contained in the citizens charter programme have an independent element; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  One of the principles of the citizens charter is that public service organisations should have well publicised and easy to use complaints procedures with independent review wherever possible. Many public service organisations have an independent element in their own complaints procedures or are in the process of 10
  introducing one. By "independent" in this context, I mean a review procedure which is not part of the management hierarchy of the organisation concerned. Those which are known to my Department are:

  Benefits Agency War Pensions Unit: War Pensions Committees;

  British Gas: Gas Consumers' Council and OFGAS;

  British Rail: Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee (co-ordinated through the Central Transport Consultative Committee);

  British Telecom: OFTEL with recourse to a service provided by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators;

  British Waterways Board: plans have been announced for the appointment of an independent ombudsman;

  14 Electricity Companies: Electricity Consumers Committees and OFFER;

  HM Prison Service: Prisons Ombudsman;

  Home Office Immigration and Nationality Department: Complaints Audit Committee;

  Housing Corporation: plans have been announced for the appointment of an independent ombudsman to deal with complaints from tenants of housing associations;

  Inland Revenue: Revenue Adjudicator;

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce: Agency Complaints Adjudicator;

  London Buses and London Underground: London Regional Passengers Committee;

  Department of National Savings: Adjudicator for National Savings;

  Police Service: Police Complaints Authority (England and Wales); Procurator Fiscal Service (Scotland);

  Post Office: Post Office Users' National Council with recourse to a service provided by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators;

  Probation Service: Area Probation Committees;

  Thirty-two Water Companies: Regional Customer Service Committees and OFWAT;

  These mechanisms are principally concerned with complaints about quality of service or misconduct and do not investigate disputes about decisions relating to entitlement, for which there are separate, and in some cases independent, procedures of appeal, for example, tribunals.

  I also understand that many local authorities have set up internal "independent" complaints units.

  None of these arrangements affects the rights of individuals to pursue their complaints through the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Health Service Commissioners or the Commissioners for Local Administration.

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the sections and organizations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is planned to move a limited number of staff from the Horse Guards road building in central London to enable refurbishment work to proceed. It is also planned to relocate most of the London office of CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems, to Norwich by 1994.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the issue of social responsibility and the proposed national lottery with specific regard to(a) young people and (b) low-income groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department has received a number of letters which reflect the views of the Jubilee centre, calling for controls on advertising to ensure that the lottery will not target young people or those on low incomes. The Government are confident that the operators who will bid to run the lottery will take a responsible approach to marketing and advertising which will be reflected in their response to the invitation to tender. This is one of the factors of which the director general of the national lottery will take account in assessing bids.

  Relocation and Amalgamation
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Sproat
  Most of my Department has recently moved to a new headquarters building in central London. The rest of the Department will move to a building nearby later this year.

  The Royal Parks Agency has also recently moved to new headquarters at Hyde Park.

  There are no other significant plans for relocation.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has spent £173,682 to date on its own market-testing programme. Future costs are likely to be considerably less. The Royal Parks Agency and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency have spent £147,833 and £9,000 respectively since becoming the responsibility of my Department in April 1992. The Royal Parks and HRPA expect future costs of £20,000 and £10,000 respectively.

  No staff are engaged full-time in work relating to market testing in the Department or its agencies.

  The Department employed PE International as its consultant. The Royal Parks Agency employed Cluttons and Watts and Partners and the HRPA employed Land Use Consultants. All were selected by competitive tender.

  Museums and Galleries Commission
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he is taking to promote and support the work of the Museums and Galleries Commission.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage provides regular funding to the Museums and Galleries 12
  Commission, £8·9 million in the financial year 1993–94. This helps to support the work of the commission in continuing to promote excellence in the museum community.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the sections and organisations within his Departments for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service has plans to relocate some of its headquarters functions from London to York. It is also currently amalgamating its former 31 areas covering England and Wales to form 13 enlarged areas. There are no plans for relocation or amalgamation in the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department or the Serious Fraud Office.

  Foreign Travel
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the annual cost of Law Officers' foreign travel.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost of Law Officers' foreign travel during the financial year 1992–93 was £7,353.

PRIME MINISTER

  French Security Services
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to his French counterpart in relation to activities by the French security services in relation to British companies.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not Government policy to comment on security and intelligence matters.

  UN Conference on Women
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what consultation process has been set up to enable women to make an input to the formal United Kingdom report to be presented at the UN conference on women in 1995; and what sums have been budgeted to encourage full consultation and to inform people of the United Kingdom's participation;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the implementation in the United Kingdom of the UN convention on the elimination of discrimination against women;

  (3) who is responsible for compiling the formal United Kingdom report to be presented at the UN conference on women in Beijing in 1995; and who will represent the United Kingdom Government at the conference.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will be responsible for compiling the United Kingdom report to the UN world conference on women in 1995. The draft report will be considered by the ministerial sub-committee on women's issues. Details of the consultation process are being finalised. The views of the Women's National Commission will be taken into account at an early stage and other organisations will be invited to contribute. The
  13
  costs of the consultation and information will be absorbed in normal Government expenditure. United Kingdom representation for the 1995 conference has yet to be decided.

  The United Kingdom ratified the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW) in 1986 and reports to the UN on its implementation every four years. The second report, made in 1991, was updated in presentation to CEDAW in January 1993. It explained that since ratification we have continued to make much progress in the fields of the articles of the convention. Recent developments contributing to equality include the introduction of the national curriculum, the investment of some £45 million to support child care for school age children, the introduction of targets for action to address health issues that particularly affect women, and action aimed at increasing women's representation at all levels in public and private employment and the decision-making processes.

  The United Kingdom has now been able to withdraw two reservations, those relating to the married man's tax allowance and the employment of women in underground work in mines.

  Human Rights (India)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the subject of human rights violations with the Vice-President of India during his visit to London; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I raised the subject of human rights in India with the Vice-President of India during my meeting with him on 24 May.

  UN Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what actions have been taken by Her Majesty's Government in fulfilment of commitments made by the United Kingdom at the United Nations conference on environment and development in June 1992; and if he will place in the Library a report of work undertaken towards meeting those commitments.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are taking a leading role in the follow-up to the conference in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. We have prepared a progress report which we shall be putting to the new United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development before its first meeting later this month. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to arrange for full copies of any statement made by Government Ministers to the Scott inquiry to be placed in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The general rule is that the statements are matters between the individual Minister concerned and Lord Justice Scott.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names, in date order, of all those who have died in the United Kingdom and Europe as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland since 5 October 1968, giving the location in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  A comprehensive list of people who have been killed as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, as well as those who have died in related incidents in Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and, since 1978, in mainland Europe, is currently being compiled and will be placed in the Library in due course. The list will include the cause and location of each death.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce a citizens charter for the nuclear industry.

  The Prime Minister
  The nuclear industry sells its products and services to other industries, not directly to the public. There are no plans to introduce charters for industries of this kind.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it the policy of the Government to give substantive answers to parliamentary questions relating to the actions of Ministers and officials between 1984 and 1992 in relation to the export of arms to Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  No. These issues are being investigated by Lord Justice Scott, and it would be wrong for the Government to comment on them before publication of his final report.

  Lord Justice Scott is free to call for any papers and to call any Minister or civil servant to give evidence to his inquiry. It is the Government's policy that all Ministers and officials called to give evidence should co-operate fully. The Government are, therefore, making all the relevant facts available to the inquiry, and it is right that we should wait for Lord Justice Scott to present his conclusions before commenting publicly.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to nuclear proliferation were discussed during his recent visit to Paris.

  The Prime Minister
  Nuclear proliferation was not discussed.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 372, if Her Majesty's Government intend to support proposals for a single-tier European Court of Human Rights at the Council of European Heads of State summit in October; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Ministers' Deputies Meeting on 28 May agreed by consensus the mandate for a draft protocol amending the control machinery of the European
  15
  convention on human rights (UCHR). The Council of Europe steering committee for human rights will now draft the amending protocol. The United Kingdom will participate fully in the drafting process. Our position at the heads of state summit in October must depend on progress made by the steering committee.

  Regional Development Assistance
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister who will be the United Kingdom's lead Minister in the discussions on objective 1 status within the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications for driving tests have been made to his Department's test centre at Norris Green, Liverpool; how many applicants have subsequently passed the test; and what percentage the passes represent of those tested, in each month since May 1991.

  Mr. Key
  Information on the applications for tests at individual test centres is not available. The numbers of tests conducted and passed are as follows:

  Year and month

  Number of tests conducted

  Number passed

  Percentage passed

  1991

  May

  963

  491

  51

  June

  1,088

  518

  48

  July

  864

  427

  49

  August

  941

  410

  44

  September

  1,063

  464

  44

  October

  892

  478

  54

  November

  810

  388

  48

  December

  849

  347

  41

  1992

  January

  589

  267

  45

  February

  617

  263

  43

  March

  1,038

  452

  44

  April

  630

  290

  46

  May

  850

  454

  53

  June

  815

  386

  47

  July

  800

  369

  46

  August

  721

  376

  52

  September

  801

  348

  43

  October

  778

  335

  43

  November

  803

  343

  43

  December

  698

  306

  44

  1993

  January

  953

  403

  42

  February

  718

  288

  40

  March

  748

  307

  41

  April

  658

  260

  40

  May

  figures not yet available

  Note: The data for each month refer to the four or five full weeks of which the Saturday fall in the month stated.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypass roads have been constructed since 1979; and if he will make a statement.
  16
  Mr. Key
  One hundred and sixty-two bypasses have been constructed on the national road network since 1979. Most of the 250 other road schemes constructed since 1979 have also removed traffic from local communities.

  Agencie
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consideration exercises and panel reviews on each of the agencies within his Department, and their framework documents; and when he will make an announcement on his intentions for the future of each agency.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 27 May 1993,Official Report, columns 685–86.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has commissioned into the impact of increases in the maximum tonnage for heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The road wear implications of heavier gross vehicle weights have been known for some time and were reported on in 1980 by the then Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The Department recently commissioned further research from the laboratory to examine the likely impact of the changes in weight limits due to take place in 1999 under EC regulations. The first report from this study was published on 4 June 1993.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the number of roadside checks on heavy goods vehicles in the Greater London area in the period January to April.

  Mr. Norris
  In the period 1 January to 31 March 1993—the latest financial year quarter for which figures are available—the Vehicle Inspectorate conducted checks on 5,079 heavy goods vehicles in Greater London. Of these, 1,237 were conducted for the purpose of enforcing roadworthiness, while 3,842 were for the purpose of traffic enforcement—which included operators' licence checks, driving licence checks, drivers' hours checks and vehicle weight checks.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full-time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Norris
  The current approximate costs to date are some £540,000, including consultancies, since November 1991. The future costs will depend on the size and scope of the forward programme which is not yet finalised. The equivalent of eight full-time staff are assigned to the market-testing programme. The consultants used by the Department since November 1991 are:

  (a) Coopers and Lybrand Management Consultants.

  (b) Ernst and Young Management Consultants.

  (c) KPMG Management Consultants.

  17

  (d) Capita Management Consultants.

  (e) Mindworks Management Consultants.

  (f) Shreeveport Consultants.

  The Department's policy is to select consultants on the basis of competitive bids.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expenditure on red route-related works to side roads leading to such; what formula is applied for this; and how much will be spent on each red route in 1993–94.

  Mr. Norris
  The latest estimate of expenditure on approved works on roads adjacent to the pilot red route is £2,784,000. The implementation of the remainder of the priority (red) route network is expected to start in the summer of 1994. Measures in side roads will be eligible for funding by the Traffic Director for London where he is satisfied they offer value for money and comply with the requirements of his network plan.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the approximate tonne-mileage of freight traffic carried by British Railways in respect of(a) minerals, (b) liquids, (c) containers and (d) other general freight in each year since 1988; and what is the estimate for 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  Statistics are not collected in precisely this form. Data for the transport by rail in 1991 of minerals, petroleum products and chemicals, expressed in terms of billion tonne kilometres, can be found in table 1.10 of Transport Statistics Great Britain 1992. A copy has been placed in the Library. Table 1.9(a) contains figures for the years 1981–91 for petroleum products; earlier figures for minerals and chemicals may be found in earlier editions. Figures for the transport of containers are not available.

  These are the latest available statistics.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 24 May,Official Report, column 712, concerning the extent to which certain contracts for rail freight were covering operating costs, if he will outline the basis of the calculations he has made in relation to the scheme of paying up to 100 per cent. of the track, or overhead costs, of future freight on rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  The administrative guidelines for the new track charges grant scheme are being considered.

  Details will be published in time for the introduction of the scheme, which is subject to the enactment of the Railways Bill.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution he expects his Department to make to the achievement of Britain's commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emission levels to the 1990 level in the year 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 24 May 1993 at column 417.

  Towing Services
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many non-United Kingdom-owned companies or subsidiaries of non-United Kingdom-owned companies are providing towing services in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  One of the two major towing operators currently serving United Kingdom ports is a United Kingdom based subsidiary of a non-United Kingdom owned company. There are a number of smaller United Kingdom-owned operators.

  Trunk Roads
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of traffic on the inter-urban trunk road network is long-distance through traffic.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not available.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what implications the recent report "Reducing Transport Emissions through Planning", and the draft planning policy guidance note 13, have for the size and character of his trunk roads programme.

  Mr. Key
  The trunk road programme will be developed in the light of latest information about forecast traffic, which will take into account existing and future settlement patterns.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the planning of trunk roads currently takes into account the potential impact of road schemes on settlement and development patterns(a) prior to roads programme entry, (b) prior to the preferred route consultation and (c) as part of the environmental assessment.

  Mr. Key
  The implications of trunk road schemes for land use planning are taken into account during the development of regional planning guidance, in the appraisal frameworks which are made available at public consultation on the road scheme and also as part of a scheme's environmental statement.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he has published to define long-distance through traffic as regards the planning of trunk roads in respect of the draft planning policy guidance note 13.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Trans-Pennine Crossing
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he used to rule out the proposal contained in the "Trans-Pennine Study: Strategy" report for a dual carriageway across the Pennines in the A628 corridor.

  Mr Key
  The proposal for a dual carriageway in the A628 corridor across the Peak District national park was ruled out because of the Government's commitment to a policy of no major new development in national parks, save in exceptional circumstances.

  M62
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has commissioned into widening the M62 beyond eight lanes; and what are their terms of reference.
  19
  Mr. Key
  Consultants were commissioned in 1991 to investigate and report on the need for widening the section between junctions 18 and 24 and the options for achieving this. The work is still in progress and no conclusions have been reached about the extent of the widening or other aspects. The next step will be to consult the public about any proposals emerging from the work.

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Norris
  The headquarters of the Surveyor General's Organisation and of the Marine Emergencies Organisation was relocated in Southampton in May. The Department's central services will be relocating to Hastings this June. A study into the possible relocation of the highways safety and traffic command (HST) was carried out last summer, but staff in HST HQ will remain in London for the time being, pending decisions on agency status. There are no other major plans for relocation, but the organisation of the Department is constantly being adjusted to reflect changing needs.

  Road Safety Audits
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the public may obtain road safety audits prepared in accordance with departmental advice note HA 42/90 and departmental standard HD 19/90.

  Mr. Key
  Road safety audit reports for a particular trunk road scheme may be inspected at any public inquiry which may be held into that scheme or at other times by arrangement with the Department's local office responsible for managing the project. Copies of the reports may be obtained for retention through the same channels at the cost of copying.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since April 1989.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In the 10 reports published by the Transport Select Committee since April 1989 to which the Government have responded, 270 recommendations were made. Of these, 214 have been accepted, in whole or in part, by the Government or have been noted where no further action was sought.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the buildings currently owned or rented by his Department, together with(a) the estimated value, (b) the annual rent and (c) the annual maintenance cost of each building in the current financial year.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's staff occupy 1,353 properties throughout the United Kingdom with an annual rent of £29 million and annual maintenance cost of £9·3 million. The estimated value of the properties is not known.
  20
  The Department also holds properties in connection with the roads programme. This stock constantly changes, depending with the progress of individual road schemes. The current holding is some 3,500 properties. An estimate of the current value is not available. The most recent available figures for 1991–92, on a portfolio of some 2,900 properties, include a rent income of some £3·95 million, net of management fees and repair and maintenance costs, and a maintenance expenditure of some £1·9 million.

  Details of each building could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Rail Pensioners
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether BR pensioners will continue to get no less favourable treatment than at present when the joint open fund for pensioners and BR employees becomes a closed fund.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport gave to him during Report stage of the Railways Bill on 24 May at column 628. The objective will be to set up the fund so that pensioners continue to have an opportunity of real increases in their pensions. Subparagraph 3(3)(c) of schedule 10 would prevent the Secretary of State from making any amendment to an existing British Rail pension scheme that would to any extent deprive a member of that scheme of pension rights which had accrued to him under the scheme before the coming into force of the amendment.

  Environmental Appraisal Manual
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the revised "Manual of Environmental Appraisal" will be published.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We are hoping to publish the manual in July.

  Bridge and Tunnel Orders
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the circular on bridge and tunnel orders under section 48 of the Transport and Works Act 1992.

  Mr. Freeman
  Late in July.

  Diesel Engine Emissions
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reinstate the diesel engine emission tests; and what financial arrangements have been made with MOT testing stations.

  Mr. Key
  Metered checks of diesel smoke in the MOT test will be reinstated as soon as possible. Our proposals will be the subject of consultation with vehicle and equipment manufacturers, the garage trade, motoring organisations and other interested bodies. No financial arrangements have been made with MOT testing stations.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how the Government calculate the funding for each grant-maintained school; and how they assess within that funding the element for additional educational needs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Grant-maintained schools receive the bulk of their recurrent funding in annual maintenance grant. The majority element is calculated by reference to the local management scheme of the former maintaining local education authority, including any allocations based on additional educational needs. Annual maintenance grant also includes elements for central services and meals.

  Grant-maintained schools are also eligible to receive transitional, special purpose and capital grants direct from the Department. None of these includes a specific additional educational needs element.

  Testing
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the total costs incurred to date in regard to the national testing of English in schools in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total estimated cost for developing, producing and distributing the national curriculum tests in England for seven and 14-year-olds is roughly £6 million since 1989.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about inaccuracies in his recent letter to chief education officers in regard to national testing.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  About 20 authorities requested clarification of the details about national curriculum testing which were asked for in a letter sent to all authorities on 7 May.

  English
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to use plain language in the instructions given to English teachers in regard to the key stage 3 assessment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend would as a matter of course expect all instructions issued by his Department or representatives to be in plain language. He has not received any representations on the clarity of the instructions given to English teachers on the assessments for 14-year-olds.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to amend circular 11/88 on school admissions.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend invited comments last December on the draft on a new circular on school admissions. He is considering the responses to that consultation.

  Primary Reception Classes
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities admit primary children into reception classes(a) once a year only, (b) twice a year and (c) three times a year; and what is the average age for admission.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full-time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Boswell
  The cost of the programme, in direct staff costs and consultancy costs, has been some £328,000 since November 1991. It is not possible to estimate the future cost as this is dependent upon the nature of the components eventually chosen for the programme. Only one member of staff is currently engaged full-time on work relating to market testing; other staff working on the programme also have other duties. The following consultants, all selected by competitive tender, have been used in connection with the programme: KPMG Management Consulting, Coopers Lybrand, CSL Ltd. and Shreeveport Ltd.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to implement the proposals contained in chapter 6.2 of the European Commission's fifth environmental action programme of 1992 on support material on radioactivity and radiation for teachers in primary and secondary education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To implement the proposals in this action programme, a series of EC meetings was held in 1992 with the aim of developing curriculum materials relevant to radioactivity and radiation protection: a representative of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools took part in this work. The materials have been produced and have been tested in schools in a number of member states (not the United Kingdom): the final version of the material will be made available towards the end of this year.

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has given to extending the scope of speech therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy to handicapped children in special schools; and what recent representations he has received from carers and parents on the matter.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has a general duty to provide therapy services to enable local education authorities to carry out their duties under the Education Acts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I receive
  23
  representations from time to time on the provision of therapy services. We consider those representations carefully.

  Religious Studies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the proposals that the GCSE religious studies syllabuses should enable three religions to be studied in future.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The criteria for GCSE subjects are a matter for the School Examinations and Assessment Council. The council has now produced criteria for syllabuses for GCSE in religious studies which allow for the study of a single denomination, a single religion or a

  Subject Committee

  Dates of last three meetings

  Art

  29 January 1992

  18 May 1992

  8 March 1993

  Business Studies and Economics

  1 June 1992

  5 November 1992

  26 February 1993

  Classical Subjects

  13 March 1992

  9 November 1992

  2 March 1993

  Computer Studies

  20 May 1992

  14 October 1992

  25 February 1993

  English

  6 March 1992

  30 October 1992

  5 March 1993

  General Studies

  3 July 1992

  12 November 1992

  11 March 1993

  Geography

  19 May 1992

  2 November 1992

  9 March 1993

  History

  20 October 1992

  3 February 1993

  26 February 1993

  Home Economics

  12 March 1992

  30 June 1992

  3 March 1993

  Mathematics

  14 May 1992

  15 October 1992

  29 March 1993

  Modern Languages

  13 May 1992

  6 November 1992

  12 January 1993

  Music

  3 February 1992

  22 October 1992

  23 February 1993

  PE

  n/k

  28 April 1992

  18 March 1993

  Religious Studies

  6 November 1991

  23 January 1992

  19 May 1992

  Science

  20 May 1992

  16 November 1992

  12 March 1993

  Biology

  22 January 1992

  3 November 1992

  2 March 1993

  Chemistry

  24 January 1992

  5 November 1992

  24 February 1993

  Physics

  17 January 1992

  5 November 1992

  25 February 1993

  Social Sciences

  21 February 1992

  9 July 1992

  26 November 1992

  Technology

  6 February 1992

  26 June 1992

  12 March 1993

  Welsh/Cymraeg

  19 May 1992

  14 October 1992

  3 March 1993

  Admissions Criteria
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list his reasons for the guidance given in his draft admissions circular that early applications should not be used as a criterion for giving priority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The law requires LEAs and schools to operate an annual admissions cycle, and to publish relevant information for parents six weeks before the deadline for expressing preferences for applying for admissions. Many parents will want to take as much time as possible to study the information and consider which schools might be most suitable. To penalise such parents by giving a priority to early applications would be contrary to the Government's policy of encouraging the operation of informed parental choice.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the buildings currently owned or rented by his Department, together with(a) the estimated value, (b) the annual rent and (c) the annual maintenance cost of each building in the current financial year.
  24
  maximum of two religions. The Government are content with this limit of two religions in such GCSEs, which will help to avoid the superficial study of religions.

  School Examinations and Assessment Council
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how often the advisory subject committees of the School Examinations and Assessment Council meet; and what are the dates of the last three occasions when each of them met.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council subject committees, which are the responsibility of the council itself, usually meet three times a year. The dates of the last three meetings of each of the committees are shown in the following table.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department does not own any of the buildings it occupies. I cannot provide details of their value.

  Annual rent £

  Maintenance charge £

  Three buildings are currently rented in the London area:

  Sanctuary buildings, SW1

  8,500,000

  1,104,000

  Lading house, WC1 (part)

  168,000

  32,000

  Canons Park, Middlesex (part)

  124,000

  146,000

  Five buildings are currently rented in Darlington:

  Mowden hall

  462,000

  284,000

  Vincent house

  37,000

  29,000

  Enterprise house (part)

  9,000

  7,000

  Corporation house (part)

  14,000

  23,000

  Stead house (part) (rent etc. yet to be apportioned and agreed with the main occupier)

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's operational work of servicing grant-maintained schools has recently been
  25
  relocated to Darlington. Subject to the passage of the Education Bill, much of this work will transfer on 1 April 1994 to the Funding Agency for Schools which will have its headquarters in York but also retain a significant presence in Darlington. Also in 1994, the work of the Department's existing architects and buildings branch will be absorbed into one of its schools branches, but will continue to be based in London.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those secondary schools chosen in the first tranche to be examined by Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The choice of schools being inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors in the current academic year is a matter for Ofsted. Ofsted has published lists of the secondary schools to be inspected in the autumn 1993 and spring 1994 terms by teams led by a registered inspector, under the new independent inspection arrangements introduced by the Education (Schools) Act 1992.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland, the chief inspector, to send details to my hon. Friend.

  Number of children with statements of special educational needs maintained by each LEA in England January 1986 to 1992

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  5

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  370

  454

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  589

  575

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  357

  414

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  425

  414

  445

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  252

  264

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  882

  752

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  664

  686

  760

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  550

  737

  779

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  603

  672

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  1,237

  1,028

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  163

  324

  457

  Inner London Education Authority

  7,241

  7,442

  7,207

  7,752

  —

  —

  —

  Barking

  352

  338

  310

  307

  337

  334

  347

  Barnet

  676

  660

  613

  605

  664

  629

  752

  Bexley

  739

  768

  773

  748

  715

  740

  814

  Brent

  n/a

  451

  541

  476

  477

  482

  543

  Bromley

  794

  793

  862

  860

  965

  1,047

  1,018

  Croydon

  854

  938

  1,115

  1,050

  1,077

  1,018

  1,016

  Ealing

  654

  696

  662

  575

  702

  833

  907

  Enfield

  769

  743

  687

  658

  616

  495

  241

  Haringey

  547

  500

  452

  392

  406

  396

  414

  Harrow

  571

  556

  578

  526

  554

  535

  540

  Havering

  615

  597

  593

  580

  550

  554

  629

  Hillingdon

  565

  576

  623

  559

  562

  593

  575

  Hounslow

  417

  654

  768

  836

  975

  1,070

  1,020

  Kingston upon Thames

  381

  367

  349

  356

  391

  414

  433

  Merton

  58

  163

  283

  466

  396

  509

  581

  Newham

  738

  738

  736

  669

  732

  764

  690

  Redbridge

  708

  711

  668

  641

  632

  594

  621

  Richmond upon Thames

  294

  298

  313

  363

  368

  393

  430

  Sutton

  347

  604

  568

  479

  522

  569

  581

  Waltham Forest

  726

  705

  502

  583

  550

  604

  674

  Birmingham

  3,517

  3,640

  3,671

  3,053

  3,100

  3,022

  3,122

  Coventry

  1,019

  1,021

  978

  989

  904

  989

  1,021

  Dudley

  912

  834

  846

  824

  894

  905

  897

  Sandwell

  1,066

  1,061

  1,061

  885

  886

  784

  740

  Solihull

  133

  202

  282

  403

  492

  560

  631

  Walsall

  734

  739

  732

  710

  699

  847

  899

  Wolverhampton

  758

  697

  751

  732

  688

  871

  938

  Knowsley

  389

  535

  641

  n.a.

  506

  764

  813

  Liverpool

  1,676

  1,708

  1,713

  1,651

  1,694

  1,705

  1,870

  St. Helens

  640

  636

  479

  558

  732

  785

  808

  Sefton

  641

  749

  788

  809

  832

  959

  1,049

  Teaching Vacancies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the latest number of teaching vacancies in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, English, history, art and social studies.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 14 May at column 578.

  Special Needs Education
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of statements maintained by individual local education authorities for each year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of children with statements of special educational needs maintained by each local education authority in England in January each year from 1986 to 1992 is given in the table. Information on children with statements was collected for the first time in January 1984. In that year 18,545 children in England had statements and, in the following year, 18,622.
  27

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Wirral

  1,081

  1,047

  747

  931

  1,105

  1,176

  1,270

  Bolton

  632

  591

  600

  626

  640

  646

  696

  Bury

  576

  544

  598

  727

  767

  834

  804

  Manchester

  248

  461

  762

  945

  1,089

  1,081

  1,024

  Oldham

  664

  591

  530

  570

  715

  863

  860

  Rochdale

  682

  697

  699

  623

  740

  844

  781

  Salford

  742

  652

  547

  521

  496

  484

  470

  Stockport

  889

  812

  945

  970

  1,001

  1,113

  1,293

  Tameside

  789

  676

  714

  768

  847

  989

  1,126

  Trafford

  404

  558

  581

  614

  676

  715

  671

  Wigan

  218

  286

  447

  387

  1,317

  735

  1,000

  Barnsley

  457

  464

  433

  399

  400

  443

  520

  Doncaster

  124

  818

  875

  866

  917

  963

  1,023

  Rotherham

  871

  886

  932

  900

  886

  1,146

  1,171

  Sheffield

  1,368

  1,328

  1,273

  1,296

  1,399

  1,334

  1,261

  Bradford

  1,381

  1,292

  1,255

  1,253

  984

  1,307

  1,267

  Calderdale

  345

  367

  385

  406

  424

  436

  461

  Kirklees

  1,027

  1,018

  1,208

  1,322

  1,421

  1,427

  1,551

  Leeds

  1,554

  2,105

  1,866

  2,305

  2,322

  2,446

  2,879

  Wakefield

  943

  905

  886

  837

  883

  881

  1,011

  Gateshead

  608

  605

  517

  451

  413

  404

  503

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  864

  847

  837

  866

  929

  894

  948

  North Tyneside

  602

  620

  669

  690

  743

  858

  888

  South Tyneside

  422

  450

  494

  501

  498

  515

  497

  Sunderland

  1,002

  959

  898

  881

  963

  986

  1,107

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  6,454

  3,595

  3,492

  3,673

  3,779

  4,183

  4,131

  Bedfordshire

  1,576

  1,440

  1,500

  1,137

  1,502

  1,544

  1,893

  Berkshire

  2,252

  2,220

  1,995

  1,946

  2,163

  2,314

  2,4507

  Buckinghamshire

  2,661

  2,641

  2,662

  2,752

  2,804

  3,195

  3,413

  Cambridgeshire

  1,928

  1,193

  1,619

  1,388

  1,699

  1,376

  1,745

  Cheshire

  3,373

  3,244

  3,279

  3,398

  3,478

  3,407

  3,798

  Cleveland

  2,276

  2,224

  2,323

  2,253

  2,286

  2,267

  2,272

  Cornwall

  1,109

  1,308

  1,417

  1,492

  1,832

  1,869

  2,152

  Cumbria

  1,235

  1,365

  1,558

  1,510

  1,511

  1,708

  2,049

  Derbyshire

  2,919

  3,265

  3,065

  3,025

  3,173

  3,351

  3,945

  Devon

  2,918

  3,098

  3,279

  3,592

  3,968

  4,297

  4,704

  - Dorset

  1,681

  1,844

  1,940

  1,940

  1,926

  1,848

  2,151

  Durham

  1,646

  1,445

  1,654

  1,656

  1,818

  1,886

  1,938

  East Sussex

  1,747

  1,734

  1,792

  1,714

  1,695

  1,719

  1,888

  Essex

  4,674

  4,468

  4,624

  4,965

  4,705

  4,551

  4,923

  Gloucestershire

  217

  627

  563

  869

  973

  1,184

  1,477

  Hampshire

  5,303

  4,913

  5,153

  5,122

  5,437

  7,011

  7,048

  Hereford and Worcester

  52

  127

  235

  412

  592

  956

  1,197

  Hertfordshire

  3,446

  3,534

  4,086

  4,095

  3,633

  3,693

  3,806

  Humberside

  2,319

  2,190

  2,077

  2,020

  1,968

  1,998

  2,207

  Isle of Wight

  337

  332

  351

  349

  394

  384

  378

  Kent

  4,934

  4,554

  5,005

  4,120

  4,713

  4,712

  5,962

  Lancashire

  4,154

  4,262

  4,104

  4,433

  4,997

  5,406

  5,950

  Leicestershire

  1,725

  1,716

  1,826

  1,571

  2,172

  2,299

  2,592

  Lincolnshire

  1,972

  1,936

  1,942

  1,995

  2,091

  2,307

  2,534

  Norfolk

  1,695

  1,934

  2,114

  2,350

  2,648

  2,725

  2,732

  North Yorkshire

  1,748

  1,756

  1,653

  2,125

  2,159

  2,210

  2,238

  Northamptonshire

  1,754

  1,607

  1,345

  473

  1,594

  1,840

  1,847

  Northumberland

  874

  885

  880

  907

  914

  869

  1,016

  Nottinghamshire

  2,531

  2,398

  2,334

  2,342

  2,294

  2,101

  1,914

  Oxfordshire

  968

  892

  827

  805

  746

  904

  1,078

  Shropshire

  1,145

  1,173

  1,316

  1,525

  1,665

  1,756

  2,004

  Somerset

  1,319

  1,727

  1,973

  2,129

  1,952

  1,924

  1,052

  Staffordshire

  2,628

  2,792

  2,694

  2,703

  2,760

  3,006

  3,400

  Suffolk

  1,598

  1,609

  1,799

  2,134

  2,333

  2,386

  2,384

  Surrey

  3,355

  3,341

  3,532

  3,694

  3,674

  3,921

  4,172

  Warwickshire

  1,639

  1,626

  1,745

  1,582

  1,671

  1,627

  1,600

  West Sussex

  1,254

  1,308

  1,346

  1,389

  1,355

  1,407

  1,555

  Wiltshire

  1,862

  1,886

  2,125

  2,344

  2,512

  2,863

  3,299

  England

  135,303

  134,908

  138,067

  138,679

  142,618

  154,743

  165,095

  n a = no return received.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures and resources he will make available to reduce the age at which children with special educational needs are identified.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill currently before Parliament requires the Secretary of State to issue a code 28
  of practice giving practical guidance to schools, local education authorities and others on the exercise of their responsibilities towards all pupils with special educational needs and to which they must have regard. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said on 29 April in another place that a guiding principle of the code of practice would be that the needs of all children with special educational

  29
  needs—of school age and pre-school age—should be identified and assessed as early as possible and as quickly as is consistent with thoroughness. It would also promote the principle that the early identification of special educational needs and early action to address those needs can be the most effective means of preventing or alleviating later difficulties. We shall be consulting fully on the draft code which will then be subject to the affirmative resolution procedures of Parliament before it can be issued. The Education Bill also carries forward the powers of LEAs to assess and make statements for children under two and the duties of DFIAs and national health service trusts towards children under five who may have special educational needs.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students in the United Kingdom have taken up loans for each year since the loans system began.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 applies to(a) self-catering accommodation which is owned or managed by an educational institution and (b) halls of residence.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992, as amended, dwellings comprising student halls of residence, which can include self-catering accommodation, are exempt from the council tax if they are provided predominantly for the accommodation of students and they are either owned or managed by an educational institution or are the subject of an agreement allowing such an institution to nominate the majority of the persons to occupy the accommodation provided.

  College Fees
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Education what plans he has to change the basis for calculating grants for college fees at Oxford and Cambridge.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to change the basis for determining the level of college fees at Oxford and Cambridge.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on clenbuterol usage in beef production.

  Mr. Soames
  Clenbuterol is one of the family of beta-agonist drugs. It is the active ingredient in five veterinary medicines licensed in the United Kingdom for use in treating respiratory ailments in cattle and horses and as an aid to cattle at the time of calving. They are available 30
  only on prescription from a veterinary surgeon. When fed to cattle at high dosages, clenbuterol has been found to improve the lean content of the carcase. Clenbuterol has not been licensed in the United Kingdom or any other member state for such a purpose and any such use would therefore be illegal.

  Surveillance for residues of clenbuterol in meat is carried out in Great Britain under the national surveillance scheme for live animals and fresh meat on farms and in slaughterhouses. No clenbuterol positives have been identified from samples taken under this scheme in Great Britain since testing for clenbuterol began in August 1989.

  Separate arrangements, directed at retail and wholesale premises, cover both imported and domestic supplies of meat and two clenbuterol positive samples were reported in 1992. Neither was likely to have posed any threat to human health, but it was not possible to establish whether the samples originated in Great Britain or elsewhere. Because of the evidence of abuse of clenbuterol outside Great Britain, surveillance is being increased this year.

  A number of reports of illegal sale of clenbuterol in Great Britain have been investigated in the past 18 months, but our inquiries have not produced any evidence to support the allegations.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will outline the steps taken to(a) prevent meat with clenbuterol in it from entering the country and (b) prevent clenbuterol from being used in meat in Britain.

  Mr. Soames
  All member states are required to submit to the Commission annually details of their national plans for the examination for residues, including clenbuterol, in live animals and fresh meat. Similar arrangements apply in respect of third countries importing meat into the Community.

  Ongoing surveillance in Great Britain for clenbuterol in imported meat is carried out under a scheme, co-ordinated by the working party on veterinary residues in animal products, which is directed at retail and wholesale premises, and extends to both imported and domestic supplies. Because of the evidence of abuse of clenbuterol outside Great Britain, surveillance is being increased this year. A new sampling programme for imported meat will also commence shortly under which samples of imported bovine tissues will be collected and analysed for clenbuterol residues.

  In Great Britain, under the Animals, Meat and Meat Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1991, as amended, it is an offence to sell or supply for slaughter for human consumption, an animal which has been administered clenbuterol illegally for growth promotion purposes.

  No prosecutions have been taken under this provision. A number of reports of illegal sale of clenbuterol in Great Britain have been investigated in the past 18 months, but our inquiries have not produced any evidence to support the allegations.

  Set-aside Payments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was paid to farmers in England and Wales in set-aside payments in each of the last three years.
  31
  Mr. Jack
  The total amount of set-aside payments to farmers in England and Wales in each of the last three years is given in the table. No payments have yet been made in respect of land set aside under the arable area payments scheme this year.

  £

  1990–91

  15,533,000

  1991–92

  20,654,000

  1992–93

  26,038,000

  Note: Payments in 1990–91 and 1991–92 were under the Five Year Scheme. Payments in 1992–93 were under the Five Year and One Year Schemes.

  Brazilian Beef
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of beef, representing what proportion of United Kingdom beef consumption, are imported from Brazil.

  Mr. Jack
  The proportion of beef consumed in the United Kingdom in 1992 imported as fresh, chilled or frozen beef from Brazil was 0.68 per cent., representing 6,758 tonnes.

  Integrated Administration and Control Scheme
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the information on land ownership and occupation obtained by his staff from IACS claim forms will be made available to local authority rights of way officers carrying out statutory duties.

  Mr. Jack
  No. The information obtained from IACS application forms will not be used for purposes other than those for which it was sought unless the applicant gives his consent.

  Plastic Food Containers
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals his Department has to introduce regulations requiring food manufacturers to carry out laboratory tests on all plastic food containers.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department has no such plans. All food contact plastics must comply with regulations which lay down certain compositional and other technical requirements. These controls exist to ensure that food safety is not compromised by the migration of chemicals from packaging into food. Food manufacturers need to ensure that contact materials meet the regulations, but they are not required to undertake laboratory tests on every container.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent research he has commissioned on transmissions by badgers of bovine tuberculosis to farm animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department is funding a range of studies on bovine TB and badgers which includes work based in the Gloucestershire study area on the mode of disease transmission from badgers to cattle.

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Jack
  As announced last year, the Department intends to relocate some 600 headquarters posts and its central science laboratory to the York area over the next three years. The former will include work on pesticides safety and plant health, statistical and financial services, and areas of personnel management and other common services.

  In January 1993, ADAS announced plans to withdraw from 12 local offices between April and October 1993. At the same time, it announced plans to relocate and amalgamate a number of laboratories as part of an overall rationalisation programme. This programme is now being implemented.

  My right hon. Friend the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced in March this year, Official Report, 31 March, columns 249–50, that it was intended to merge the food science laboratory, Norwich and the Torry research station, Aberdeen with the existing Central Science Laboratory Agency with effect from 1 April 1994. There are no plans to move the laboratories at Norwich and Aberdeen from their present locations.

  Bananas
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she has taken in the discussions on the new proposed banana regime to ensure that the differences in the mechanisms of the United Kingdom banana market is reflected in the allocation of import licence quotas.

  Mr. Jack
  Negotiations on the detailed arrangements for the new Community banana regime are continuing in Brussels and the United Kingdom is contributing actively to these discussions. The regulations implementing the new arrangements will need to take account of the complexity of the current market arrangements in all member states.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken in the negotiations of the new proposed banana regime to ensure increased competition opportunities.

  Mr. Jack
  The completion of the single market in bananas will expand access to the hitherto restricted markets of some member states and increase competition across the European banana market. Fruit entered into free circulation in one member state may in future be traded freely across the Community. Of the tariff quota of 2·0 million tonnes for imports of third country bananas, 3·5 per cent. will be set aside for newcomers who have begun trading in these bananas since 1992.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration is being given to the latest trading histories of companies in 1991–92 in allocating licences for the import of bananas.

  Mr. Jack
  Council regulation (EEC) 404/93 establishing a common organisation of the Community banana
  33
  market provides for the allocation of licences to import third-country bananas, within a reduced tariff quota of 2·0 million tonnes, on the basis of a three-year average of past trade. Initially, the reference period is 1989 to 1991, but it will be rolled forward annually in subsequent years. Thus it will in time take account of the trading histories of companies in all the years leading up to the implementation of the new arrangements.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations her Department has received from independent banana ripening companies on the proposed new EC banana regime.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have received a wide range of representations from interested parties at all stages in the marketing of bananas. This has included a significant number of independent banana ripeners.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in negotiations on the proposed new EC banana regime to ensure the United Kingdom's historic allocation of quotas is not replicated.

  Mr. Jack
  Discussion of the detailed arrangements for the new harmonised Community banana regime is continuing in Brussels. The new arrangements will apply in all member states and entitlement to licence within the reduced-tariff quota of 2.0 million tonnes for imports of third country bananas will be subject to criteria to be defined in Commission implementing regulations.

  Fishing Restrictions
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what she estimates will be the annual cost to public funds of administering days-at-sea restrictions.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my predecessor gave the lion. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on 24 March, column 636.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of her Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Jack
  The cost to date of the Department's market testing programme is estimated to be some £1,120,000 including external consultancy support. Plans for the future are still under consideration.

  The number of full-time staff in the market testing unit is currently 17. But a further 175 staff in various other parts of the Department have contributed to the programme either in the identification of candidates for market testing or in the actual conduct of tests arid the activities associated with them.

  The following firms of consultants have been used by the Department as part of its market testing programme since November 1991:

  Amtec Consulting;

  Capita Management Consultancy;

  Coopers and Lybrand;

  Ernst and Young;

  34

  Gould Consultants;

  lioskyns Group;

  Leopold Joseph and Sons Ltd.

  In addition, a number of self-employed purchasing specialists have been used by the Department. Consultancy services have been acquired in full accordance with the purchasing principles laid down in chapter 31 of "Government Accounting."

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE were confirmed in England for each quarter since 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  There were 827 cases of BSE confirmed in England before the disease become notifiable on 21 June 1988. Since then the number of confirmed cases in England by date of report to the Ministry for each quarter is as follows:

  Number

  1988

  1Quarter 3

  899

  Quarter 4

  1,105

  1989

  Quarter 1

  1,448

  Quarter 2

  1,334

  Quarter 3

  1,630

  Quarter 4

  2,010

  1990

  Quarter 1

  3,272

  Quarter 2

  2,941

  Quarter 3

  2,903

  Quarter 4

  3,496

  1991

  Quarter 1

  4,694

  Quarter 2

  4,514

  Quarter 3

  5,700

  Quarter 4

  7,077

  1992

  Quarter 1

  8,419

  Quarter 2

  6,822

  Quarter 3

  7,425

  Quarter 4

  8,301

  1993

  Quarter 1

  27,588

  1 21 June 1988 to 30 September 1988.

  2 This figure is incomplete as not all suspects reported in this quarter have been slaughtered or confirmed.

  EC Potato Regime
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on a European potato regime.

  Mr. Jack
  The proposal is set out in COM(92)185 final, published on 17 December 1992. The December Agriculture Council decided to consider it further with the addition of provision for marketing standards, as soon as the European Parliament had given its opinion. That opinion was delivered in April. The amended proposal came before the May Council of Ministers, where it did not prove possible to reach agreement. It was therefore referred back to the special committee for agriculture for further work.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 13, what studies his Department is making of the cost and effectiveness of profit-related pay schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Ministers keep the cost and effectiveness of the tax relief for profit-related pay under review, and the current Inland Revenue management plan, published on 14 May, contains proposals for an independent study of the effects of PRP schemes.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Scheme

  Normal retirement age

  Date from which window's benfits are in-cluded

  Personal benefits

  Maximum pen-sionable service

  Men

  Women

  Pension

  Lump sum

  Principal civil service pension scheme

  60

  60

  1949

  1/80 of final pensionable pay per year of service

  3 times pension

  40 years by 60, 45 years by 65

  Teachers' pension scheme

  60

  60

  51972

  1/80 of final pensionable pay per year of service

  3 times pension

  40 years by 60,45 year by 65

  Local government

  160–65

  160–65

  1953

  1/80 of final pensionable pay per year of service

  3 times pension2

  40 years by 60, 45 years by 65

  NHS pension scheme Officers

  60

  360

  1948

  1/80 of final pensionable pay per year of service

  3 times pension2

  40 years by 60,45 years by 65

  Medical and dental practitioners

  60

  60

  1948

  1·4 per cent, of earnings revalued

  3 times pension2

  40 years by 60, 45 years by 65

  Mental health officers

  55

  55

  1948

  (a) service up to 20 years: 1/80 (b) service in excess of 20 years: 2/80 of final pensionable pay per complete year of service

  3 times pension2

  30 years by 55 Overall maximum of 33 years

  Police pension scheme

  448–55

  448–55

  1921

  (a) service up to 20 years: 1/80 (b) service in excess of 20 years: 1/80 of final pensionable pay per year of service

  By commuting portion of pension

  30 years

  Firefighters pension scheme

  450–55

  450–55

  61948

  (a) service up to 20 years: 2/80 (b) service in excess of 20 years: 2/80 of final pensionable pay per year of service

  By commuting portion of pen-sion

  30 years

  Armed Forces pension scheme Officers and warrant officers

  37–55

  37–55

  Before 1919

  28·5 per cent, of representative pay after 16 years rising to 48·5 per cent, after 34 years

  3 times pension

  34 years

  Other ranks

  40–55

  40–55

  1950

  31·833 per cent, of representative pay after 22 years rising to 48·5 per cent, after 37 years

  3 times pension

  37 years

  1 From age 60, subject to completion of 25 years of service.

  2 Lump sum reduced for married men in respect of their pre-1972 service as contribution to provide half rate widow's pension.

  3 Female nurses may retire on unreduced benefits from age 55, subject to certain conditions.

  4 Normal retirement age is dependent upon length of service. Police inspectors and above may serve beyond age 55.

  5 From 1966 to 1972 the scheme provided for widow's benefits on a voluntary basis.

  6 Between 1925 and 1948 the widows of firefighters who died or retired as a result of injury sustained on duty received a pension.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had on the proposed reform of tax relief on relocation expenses.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on 26 May 1993 at columns 573–74.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the main pension schemes and pension arrangements covering public sector employees(a) retirement ages for (i) men and (ii) women, (b) from what date widows' benefits are included, (c) the proportion of salary payable on retirement after full service and (d) the number of years' service which is treated as full service.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested for the main public service pension schemes is as follows:

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance his Department has given to other Departments on the arrangements for the taxation of relocation expenses incurred by civil servants.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has explained to Departments the details of the Finance Bill provisions on relocation expenses and how they will work in practice.

  Vineyards
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the Customs and Excise regulatory regime of English vineyards to the levels enjoyed by wine makers in other EC countries.

  Sir John Cope
  The regulatory regime operated by Customs and Excise on English vineyards is commensurate to the amount of revenue at risk.

  Customs and Excise are undertaking a programme of rationalisation and simplification in the excise field. The aim is to meet revenue requirements by making full use of traders' own commercial accounting and security arrangements in place of officially designated records and practices. Visiting staff will exercise control primarily by auditing traders' systems to ensure that they provide adequate protection for the Revenue. Physical checks on stocks and operations will be targeted according to perceived risk. Most traders will be visited much less frequently than at present. A number of changes along these lines have already been extended to the control of United Kingdom wine producers.

  Taxation
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total tax liability of taxpayers in 1993–94, excluding all tax reliefs and allowances other than personal allowance, married couples' allowance, age-related allowances, additional personal allowance, widow's bereavement allowance, blind person's allowance and qualifying interest on loans for purchase or improvement of owner-occupied property, broken down into the top and bottom(a) percentile, (b) 5 per cent., (c) decile, (d) quintile and (e) half of taxpayers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates of the tax liabilities are shown in the table. No account has been taken of any behavioural changes which might result from the restriction of the reliefs.

  Quintile group of taxpayers1

  Tax liability £billion

  Bottom 5 per cent.

  0·1

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  0·3

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  1·1

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  8·7

  Top 50 per cent.

  55·8

  Top 20 per cent.

  38·1

  Top 10 per cent.

  27·9

  Top 5 per cent.

  20·6

  Top 1 per cent.

  9·9

  Total tax liability

  64·4

  1 Excludes individuals brought into tax through the removal of the relevant reliefs.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total costs in 1991–92 of those tax allowances and reliefs listed in table 1.9 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1992".

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that a reliable estimate cannot be made.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in the latest year for which information 38
  is available, is (a) the total number of people, (b) the number of people over state retirement age and (c) the number of one-parent families who pay (i) income tax and (ii) VAT.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that in 1993–94 24·5 million individuals will be liable to income tax. Of these an estimated 3·0 million are aged 65 or over and 0·5 million are single parents.

  VAT is chargeable on a wide range of consumer expenditure and it is likely that everybody has to pay some in the course of a year.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of all unclaimed premium bond prizes for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  A premium bond prize is deemed to be unclaimed when it has been outstanding for 18 months since the draw in which it was issued. The latest figure, therefore, is for prizes unclaimed up to and including the October 1991 prize draw. All the figures below are cumulative from the first prize draw in June 1957.

  Number

  Value £

  October 1991

  194,321

  10,879,300

  October 1990

  174,954

  9,859,150

  October 1989

  150,575

  8,601,050

  October 1988

  127,050

  7,404,200

  October 1987

  105,708

  6,271,525

  From June 1957 to October 1991, 38,549,293 prizes were issued to the value of £2,256,469,600. Prizes on the unclaimed list therefore represent 0·5 per cent. by number and 0·48 per cent. by value.

  Business Enterprise Scheme
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many BES companies have been allowed to sell dormant subsidiaries without losing BES tax relief.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available.

  European Community Budget
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution is made(a) per capita and (b) in total to the budget of the European Community by (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) France; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The gross contributions to the 1993 European Community Budget by the United Kingdom and France are estimated to be as follows, taking account of the arrangements for abating the United Kingdom's contribution:

  Mecu

  Ecu per capita

  France

  12,089

  212

  United Kingdom

  7,881

  137

  Source: Contribution: Statement On the 1993 Community Budget (Cm 2167)

  Population: OECD Main Economic Indicators

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Nelson
  Some £200,000 has been spent to date on implementing the 1993–94 programme and it is estimated that a further £100,000 will be spent. This includes the cost of support for the in-house teams and other consultancy work. It does not include the cost of the in-house teams themselves. Work on market testing is combined with other duties and no staff are engaged full time on this work. The firms of consultants so far used are Touche Ross, Prime Strategy Consultants and Ernst and Young. They have all been selected after a competitive tendering exercise.

  Seizures of Illegal Weapons made by HM C&E within the last 10 years.

  Year Ended 31 March

  Handguns

  Rifles

  Shotguns

  CS Gas Canisters

  Stun Guns

  1984

  908

  155

  10

  152

  11

  1985

  150

  52

  7

  174

  2

  1986

  108

  156

  11

  141

  30

  1987

  1,071

  28

  21

  114

  291

  1988

  168

  31

  6

  276

  309

  1989

  130

  55

  28

  395

  73

  1990

  1,489

  144

  44

  414

  301

  1991

  253

  535

  49

  1,132

  48

  1992

  176

  126

  82

  692

  53

  1993

  138

  41

  39

  2,580

  427

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update table 25 from the Family Expenditure Survey of 1990, showing the total disposable income of households by deciles for different household composition to 1991.

  Distribution of aggregate disposable income of households—1991 Selected groups of households

  Total disposable income of households (£)

  As a percentage of the median

  Lowest decile

  Lower quartile

  Median

  Upper quartile

  Highest decile

  Lowest decile

  Lower decile

  Upper quartile

  Highest decile

  Composition of household

  One adult

  53·56

  65·66

  111·51

  200·21

  292·05

  48·0

  58·9

  179·5

  261·9

  Retired households mainly dependent on state pensions

  52·73

  55·39

  63·50

  84·07

  102·08

  83·0

  87·2

  132·4

  160·8

  Other retired households

  88·95

  106·59

  142·18

  196·35

  265·82

  62·6

  75·0

  138·1

  187·0

  Non-retired households

  47·60

  88·51

  176·43

  261·80

  349·15

  27·0

  50·2

  148·4

  197·9

  One adult, one child

  60·69

  65·45

  88·17

  171·40

  251·75

  68·8

  74·2

  194·4

  285·5

  One adult, two or more children

  72·85

  84·68

  124·20

  201·38

  338·37

  58·7

  68·2

  162·1

  272·4

  One man one woman

  116·71

  177·94

  275·13

  420·20

  565·42

  42·4

  64·7

  152·7

  205·5

  Retired households mainly dependent on state pensions

  88·51

  101·11

  121·06

  140·58

  163·78

  73·1

  83·5

  116·1

  135·3

  Other retired households

  143·46

  174·24

  219·99

  298·52

  437·55

  65·2

  79·2

  135·7

  198·9

  Non-retired households

  162·58

  239·16

  340·75

  465·72

  626·81

  47·7

  70·2

  136·7

  183·9

  Two men or two women

  119·31

  159·61

  261·61

  375·56

  478·65

  45·6

  61·0

  143·6

  183·0

  One man one woman, one child

  146·87

  227·25

  323·32

  448·57

  594·79

  45·4

  70·3

  138·7

  184·0

  One man one woman, two children

  174·30

  252·20

  338·59

  453·17

  601·33

  51·5

  74·5

  133·8

  177·6

  One man one woman, three children

  135·28

  246·52

  348·93

  479·43

  689·17

  38·8

  70·7

  137·4

  197·5

  Illegal Weapons Imports
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures Customs and Excise officers are taking to stop the illegal flow of weapons from eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union from entering the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs give high priority to the detection of illegal imports of firearms. They carry out selective anti-smuggling checks, based on intelligence-led, sharply focused profiles which take into account the ready availability of firearms originating in eastern Europe and the former USSR.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many illegal weapons were seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in each of the last 10 years.

  Sir John Cope
  The table sets out the number of illegal weapons seized by Customs and Excise during the last 10 fiscal years.

  Mr. Portillo
  Table 25 using data from the 1991 Family Expenditure Survey is as follows:
  41

  Total disposable income of households (£)

  As a percentage of the median

  Lowest decile

  Lower quartile

  Median

  Upper quartile

  Highest decile

  Lowest decile

  Lower quartile

  Upper quartile

  Highest decile

  Two adults, four or more children

  149·25

  213·27

  272·98

  364·53

  557·58

  54·7

  78·1

  133·5

  204·3

  Three adults

  210·67

  285·67

  397·09

  528·27

  680·57

  53·1

  71·9

  133·0

  171·4

  Three adults, one or more children

  244·89

  329·23

  438·73

  571·44

  731·00

  55·8

  75·0

  130·2

  166·6

  Four or more adults

  306·97

  420·55

  547·95

  700·92

  882·96

  56·0

  76·8

  127·9

  161·1

  Four of more adults, one or more children

  280·48

  361·29

  468·14

  661·14

  838·12

  59·9

  77·2

  141·2

  179·0

  Type of administrative area

  Greater London

  67·44

  143·67

  283·47

  475·43

  689·72

  23·8

  50·7

  167·7

  243·3

  Metropolitan Districts and Central Clydeside Conurbation

  64·19

  108·34

  220·10

  357·43

  502·86

  29·2

  49·2

  162·4

  228·5

  Non-Metropolitan Districts:

  High population density

  80·00

  141·45

  254·77

  381·67

  541·41

  31·4

  55·55

  149·8

  212·5

  Low population density

  80·72

  143·50

  262·09

  406·94

  569·98

  30·8

  54·8

  155·3

  217·5

  Households with weekly expenditure:

  Under £60

  41·70

  53·43

  57·56

  69·23

  91·63

  72·4

  92·8

  120·3

  159·2

  £60 and under £80

  52·31

  61·39

  77·67

  98·50

  129·41

  67·4

  79·0

  126·8

  166·6

  £80 and under £100

  62·40

  82·53

  101·93

  128·13

  167·98

  61·2

  81·0

  125·7

  164·8

  £100 and under £125

  78·98

  101·22

  130·39

  180·71

  252·09

  60·6

  77·6

  138·6

  193·3

  £125 and under £150

  89·93

  121·41

  159·41

  216·84

  289·02

  56·4

  76·2

  136·0

  181·3

  £150 and under £175

  113·05

  152·10

  199·12

  256·65

  312·03

  56·8

  76·4

  128·9

  156·7

  £175 and under £225

  145·15

  190·56

  247·87

  320·09

  399·10

  58·6

  76·9

  129·1

  161·0

  £225 and under £275

  183·70

  240·94

  308·82

  387·46

  479·60

  59·5

  78·0

  125·5

  155·3

  £275 and under £325

  210·69

  274·00

  353·66

  436·21

  533·38

  59·6

  77·5

  123·3

  150·8

  £325 and under £375

  234·09

  308·81

  392·98

  493·30

  599·12

  59·6

  78·6

  125·5

  152·5

  £375 and under £425

  231·25

  331·47

  438·94

  559·80

  694·22

  52·7

  75·5

  127·5

  158·2

  £425 and under £475

  277·00

  379·40

  466·41

  592·36

  720·46

  59·4

  81·3

  127·0

  154·5

  £475 and under £550

  269·71

  365·89

  499·46

  642·46

  832·47

  54·0

  73·2

  128·6

  166·6

  £550 and under £650

  300·67

  425·40

  571·40

  679·32

  814·71

  52·6

  74·4

  118·9

  142·6

  £650 and under £800

  372·74

  456·32

  601·33

  768·76

  1,018·08

  62·0

  75·9

  127·8

  169·3

  £800 or more

  329·76

  458·85

  642·48

  882·96

  1,472·52

  51·3

  71·4

  137·4

  229·2

  All household income

  74·62

  132·51

  252·91

  398·05

  563·53

  29·5

  52·4

  157·4

  222·8

  Financial Regulation
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he proposes to publish the Securities and Investments Board review of financial regulation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) on 25 May 1993 at column 540.

  Table 1

  HCHS: Salaries and wages costs as a proportion of total revenue expenditure—percentage figures

  Medical staff

  Dental staff

  Professions allied to medicine

  Professional, technical and scientific staff

  Opticians

  Pharmacists

  Maintenance staff

  Ambulance staff

  Non-NHS staff (agency etc.)

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  82·91

  0·49

  2–99

  3·44

  0–02

  0·43

  2–31

  1–66

  1·04

  0·00

  21·34

  1980–81

  9·36

  0·50

  2·74

  3·69

  0·02

  0·40

  2·10

  1·77

  0·99

  0·01

  21·59

  1981–82

  9·21

  0·50

  3·32

  3·23

  0·01

  0·40

  2·12

  1·75

  0·85

  0·01

  21·40

  1982–83

  9·26

  0·49

  2·93

  3·76

  0·02

  0·40

  2·14

  1·96

  0·73

  -0·06

  21·63

  1983–84

  9·56

  0·51

  3·02

  3·77

  0·01

  0·40

  2·13

  1·96

  0·69

  0·02

  22·08

  1984–85

  9·68

  0·51

  2·87

  4·22

  0·01

  0·40

  2·02

  1·81

  0·86

  0·02

  22·41

  1985–86

  10·12

  0·53

  2·98

  4·30

  0·02

  0·41

  1·94

  1·79

  1·10

  0·02

  23·21

  1986–87

  10·35

  0·53

  3·22

  4·36

  0·01

  0·42

  1·85

  1·93

  1·45

  0·02

  24·;16

  1987–88

  10·59

  0·52

  3·41

  4·26

  0·01

  0·42

  1·82

  1·90

  1·87

  0·02

  24·83

  1988–89

  10·56

  0·49

  3·44

  4·16

  0·01

  0·43

  1·62

  1·76

  2·01

  0·02

  24·50

  1989–90

  10·59

  0·46

  3·47

  4·17

  0·02

  0·47

  1·52

  1·51

  2·19

  0·02

  24·42

  1990–91

  10·78

  0·45

  3·55

  4·55

  0·02

  0·51

  1·44

  1·61

  1·87

  0·03

  24·81

  1991–92

  9·68

  0·38

  3·18

  4·19

  0·02

  0·45

  1·19

  1·48

  1·24

  0·20

  22·01

HEALTH

  NHS Salaries
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 11 May,Official Report, columns 393–96, if she will publish separate figures for salaries and wages of each of the groups listed as all other staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the tables. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 11 May at columns 393–96 for details on interpretation of the tables.
  43

  Table 2

  HCHS: Analysis of total salaries and wages costs—percentage figures

  Medical staff

  Dental staff

  Professions allied to medicine

  Professional, technical and scientific staff

  Opticians

  Pharmacists

  Maintenance staff

  Ambulance staff

  Non-NHS staff(agency, etc.)

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  11·98

  0·65

  3·99

  4·59

  0·03

  0·57

  3·08

  2·22

  1·38

  0·00

  28·50

  1980–81

  12·30

  0·66

  3·60

  4·85

  0·02

  0·53

  2·76

  2·33

  1·30

  0·01

  28·36

  1981–82

  12·27

  0·67

  4·42

  4·30

  0·02

  0·54

  2·82

  2·33

  1·13

  0·01

  28·52

  1982–83

  12·40

  0·66

  3·93

  5·03

  0·02

  0·54

  2·87

  2·63

  0·98

  -0·08

  28·96

  1983–84

  12·66

  0·68

  4·06

  5·07

  0·02

  0·54

  2·86

  2·63

  0·93

  0·03

  29·69

  1984–85

  13·04

  0·69

  3·86

  5·69

  0·02

  0·54

  2·73

  2·44

  1·16

  0·03

  30·20

  1985–86

  13·67

  0·72

  4·03

  5·81

  0·02

  0·55

  2·62

  2·42

  1·48

  0·03

  31·35

  1986–87

  13·89

  0·71

  4·33

  5·86

  0·02

  0·56

  2·49

  2·59

  1·95

  0·03

  32·43

  1987–88

  14·10

  0·69

  4·54

  5·67

  0·02

  0·56

  2·43

  2·53

  2·50

  0·03

  33·07

  1988–89

  13·86

  0·64

  4·52

  5·46

  0·02

  0·57

  2·12

  2·31

  2·64

  0·03

  32·17

  1989–90

  14·02

  0·61

  4·59

  5·52

  0·02

  0·62

  2·01

  2·00

  2·90

  0·03

  32·32

  1990–91

  14·14

  0·59

  4·66

  5·97

  0·02

  0·67

  1·89

  2·11

  2·45

  0·04

  32·55

  1991–92

  14·47

  0·56

  4·75

  6·46

  0·03

  0·68

  1·78

  2·22

  1·85

  0·30

  32·88

  note: There are some discontinuities in the detailed classification of staff between Professions Allied to Medicine (Supplementary to Medicine) and Professional, Technical and Scientific staff during the period.

  Community Care
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the report, "Community Care Planning; a Model for Housing Need Assessment with Reference to People with Learning Disabilities", produced by the Institute of Housing and the National Federation of Housing Associations, a copy of which has been sent to her; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are aware of this report. The question of the provision of housing and accommodation for people with learning disabilities is an important one. Within the community care arrangements we have made it clear that social services departments, housing authorities and other housing providers should work together in planning and providing services to meet local need. The guidance issued last year to local authorities (LAC(92)15) on planning services for adults with learning disabilities also emphasised this point. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Wellhouse Trust
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the financial deficit of the Wellhouse Trust in 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what deficit is projected for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The current Wellhouse national health service trust was not established until 1 April 1992. The trust's 1992–93 accounts will be published in September 1993. The business plan for 1993–94 forecasts a break-even position.

  Air Pollution
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research studies have been considered by her Department on the relationship between particulate air pollution and human mortality; and what plans she has to issue guidelines for the protection of human health.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's committee on the medical effects of air pollutants (COMEAP) has considered the following recent studies relating mortality to particulate pollution:Schwartz J and Marcus A, 1990. Mortality and air pollution in London; a time series analysis.
  Schwartz J 1991. Particulate air pollution and daily mortality in Detroit.
  44
  Schwartz J and Dockery DW, 1992. Particulate air pollution and daily mortality in Steubenville, Ohio.
  Waller RE and Swan AV, 1992. Invited commentary: Particulate air pollution and daily mortality.
  Schwartz J and Dockery DW, 1992. Increased mortality in Philadelphia associated with daily air pollution concentrations.
  Pope CA, Schwartz J and Ransom MR, 1992. Daily mortality and (PM101) pollution in the Utah Valley.
  COMEAP advised that while these studies were consistent in demonstrating an association between PM101 and mortality, no convincing evidence of a casual relationship had been shown.
  COMEAP is currently considering ways of providing advice to sensitive groups on the steps which might be taken to reduce adverse effects of air pollutants.
  1PM,10= Particulate Matter (10 micrometres).

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the outcome of her discussions on 27 May with her European Community counterparts on the issue of the advertising of tobacco products.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At the Health Council meeting the Danish presidency concluded after discussions that there remained insufficient support for the Commission's revised proposal for a directive introducing a Community-wide ban on the advertising of tobacco products. There was therefore no vote on the proposal. Discussions will continue under the Belgian presidency on appropriate Community action in support of member states to reduce tobacco consumption.

  NHS (Ethnic Minorities)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the membership of the working group on ethnic minority employment in the NHS; how many times it has met in 1992 and 1993; and what were its recommendations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The group is an informal one which comprises a changing number of individuals, mainly senior and professional health service staff. It has not yet completed its work.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of junior doctors working an average of more than 83 hours a week nationally and by region at 1 April.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the number of junior doctors and dentists contracted for more than a maximum average of 83 hours per week at 31 March nationally and by region is shown in the table.

  Region

  Number

  Northern

  0

  Yorkshire

  18

  Trent

  0

  East Anglian

  3

  North West Thames

  89

  North East Thames

  101

  South East Thames

  9

  South West Thames

  21

  Wessex

  4

  Oxford

  31

  South Western

  2

  West Midlands

  33

  Mersey

  0

  North Western

  59

  England

  370

  Notes:

  (i)Figures derived from the reports of the 14 English regional task forces.

  (ii)Special health authorities included in the figures for the Thames regions

  Regional Health Service
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has for the future regional tier of the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 12 May at cols 483–84, which sets out the terms of reference of the national health service management functions and manpower review. Decisions of the regional tier of NHS management will be taken after consideration of the review's recommendations.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of infertility treatment in the NHS in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Infertility treatment costs are not separately identified in annual financial returns.

  Skin Products
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 486, what consideration the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs has given to drugs that have not been licensed by the Medicines Control Agency; and what mechanism will be used under the selected list scheme for the provision to NHS patients of skin products that do not require a product licence under the Medicines Act 1968.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Advisory Committee is free to consider all drugs, including those which have not been 46
  licensed by the Medicines Control Agency. It will ensure that drugs to meet all real clinical needs can be provided as economically as possible under the national health service.

  Doncaster Health Care Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of(a) the management, (b) the present financial position and (c) the care provided by the Doncaster Healthcare Trust; what representations she has received about the trust; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts are monitored by the NHS management executive. The board of Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust is due to publish its first annual report and accounts and hold its annual public meeting by 30 September 1993. The board anticipates that the annual accounts will demonstrate a satisfactory financial outcome in 1992–93. The specification and monitoring of the quality of care are primarily matters for purchasers.

  Three hon. Members have made representations on matters relating to Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for the West Midlands regional health authority the names of the chairman and board members, their occupations or professions and their level of allowances or remuneration payable.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names and occupations of the chairman and non-executive members of West Midlands regional health authority are as follows:

  Occupation/ Profession:

  Chairman:

  Sir Donald Wilson

  Farmer

  Non-Executive Members:

  Ms Jacqueline Cravos

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. Elspeth Metcalfe

  Businesswoman

  Mr. Timothy Morris

  Chairman, Birmingham Post

  Professor Sir Michael Thompson

  Vice-Chancellor, University of Birmingham

  Mr. Michael Worley

  Managing Director

  Executive members are appointed by the regional health authority, which determines their remuneration.

  The current levels of annual remuneration for chairmen and non-executive members of regional health authorities are:

  £

  Chairmen:

  20,925

  Non-executive members:

  5,000

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has considered revised arrangements for the provision of legal services to the West Midlands health authority and West Midlands district health authorities; and if she will make a statement.
  47
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The provision of legal services to West Midlands regional health authority and its associated districts is a matter for the authorities concerned.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for each of the hospital trusts in the

  Occupation/ Profession

  FIRST COMMUNITY HEALTH NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Richard Cartwright

  Managing Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. J. Sandy

  Chartered Surveyor

  Miss S. C. Massey

  Solicitor

  Mr. M. R. Heenan

  Chartered Accountant

  Mr. K. A. Jackson

  Director

  RUGBY DISTRICT NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Leslie Anderton

  Retired Personnel Executive

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. V. Rizk

  Housewife

  Mr. A. M. Laws

  Engineer

  Mr. I. Fell

  Director, British Blind Sports

  Mr. P. Morgan

  Solicitor

  Mr. P. Galliford

  Construction Engineer

  MID STAFFS MENTAL HEALTH UNIT NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Richard Venables

  Businessman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. J. M. Dalgarno

  Councillor

  Dr. J. Fleming Patterson

  Retired GP

  Mr. R. Trainor

  Management Consultant

  Lord Stafford

  Runs Family Estate

  Mr. C. R. Craven

  Banker

  WALSALL HOSPITALS NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mavis Foden

  Councillor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. M. Bladon

  Freelance Market Research Supervisor

  Mr. C. N. McFarlane

  Retired Consultant Obstetrician

  Mr. R. A. Anderson

  Management Consultant

  Mr. D. S. Frost

  Chief Executive

  Mr. T. G. Kelly

  Ophthalmic Optician

  SOUTH WARWICKSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Lady Jean Liggins

  —

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. B. Gillitt

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. A. D. Docker

  Company Director

  Mr. P. Clarke

  Chartered Surveyor

  Mr. D. Tuckey

  Retired Management Consultant

  Mrs. J. Marsh

  School Governor

  EAST BIRMINGHAM HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  John Bettinson

  Solicitor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. P. Couse

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. C. Kenrick

  Market Research Consultant

  Lady S. Thompson

  Former Scientist

  Mr. M. Wilcox

  Property Consultant

  HEREFORDSHIRE COMMUNITY HEALTH NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Sir John Cotterell

  Farmer

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. A. P. Priday

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. H. Philpott

  Local Government Worker

  Mr. R. Smith

  Managing Director

  Mr. R. Higgins

  Former Diplomat/Journalist

  Mrs. M. Praill

  Age Concern Development Worker

  PREMIER HEALTH NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Margaret Whalley

  Councillor

  Non-executive directors:

  Dr. P. Bradfield

  Managing Director

  Mr. P. Atkinson

  Executive Director

  Mr. K. Hope

  Charted Accountant

  Professor M. Olsen

  Emeritus Professor, Birmingham University

  Mrs. I. Davies

  Head Teacher

  MID STAFFORDSHIRE GENERAL HOSPITALS NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Joan Burton

  Farming Business

  48
  west midlands region the names of the chairman and board members, their occupations or professions and any allowances or remuneration payable.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts in West Midlands region and the most up-to-date information about their occupations are as shown:
  49

  Occupation/Profession

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. H. Butter

  Retired Farmer

  Mrs. C. Evans

  Accountant

  Mr. C. Shore

  Company Director

  Mr. J. Woodyard

  Retired Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

  Mrs. P. Atkins

  Publicity Consultant

  NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE HOSPITAL CENTRE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Geoffrey Manning

  Retired Consultant Oral Surgeon

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. P. Johnstone

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. M. Michell

  PR Consultant

  Mrs. R. Taylor

  Housewife

  Mr. E. F. Slade

  Director, Keele University

  Mr. S. Russell

  Retired

  WALSALL COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Lady Alma Hill

  Communications Consultant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. F. C. Bell

  Retired Manager

  Mr. D. Chevins

  Management Consultant

  Mrs. T. Joshi

  JP

  Mr. A. J. Wooster

  Retired Company Executive

  Mrs. E. M. Buggins

  Freelance Lecturer

  NORTH WARWICKSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Keith Dixon

  Managing Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. C. Banning

  Educational Psychologist

  Mrs. E. M. Stuart

  General Secretary

  Mr. R. P. Hartley

  Managing Director

  Mr. U. Todnor

  Chief Executive

  Mr. A. F. Pavis

  Design Engineer

  NORTH EAST WORCESTERSHIRE COMMUNITY HEALTH NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Ian McKay

  Chief Executive

  Non-executive directors:

  Reverand P. Chippendale

  Clergyman

  Mrs. J. Croom

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. J. Morris

  Partner, Hotel Business

  Mr. B. Slater

  Managing Director

  Mrs. J. Stacey

  Retired Head Teacher

  SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE COMMUNITY NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Cecil Duckworth

  Chief Executive

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. C. Glossop

  Chief Executive

  Mrs. S. Richards

  Management Consultant

  Mr. D. Phillips

  College Manager

  Dr. M. Windsor

  Retired Clinical Director

  Mr. G. Hughes

  Retired Banker

  KIDDERMINSTER HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Sir Patrick Lawrence

  Solicitor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. Mills

  Company Director

  Mrs. N. Griffiths

  Housewife

  Professor P. Spurgeon

  Director, Health Services Management Centre

  Mr. A. Clarke

  Local Government Officer

  Mrs. C. Dutton

  Chartered Accountant

  WOLVERLY NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Anne Hingley

  Company Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. J. S. Quinn

  Solicitor

  Mrs. C. Bruton

  Company Director

  Mrs. J. MacDougall

  PR Consultant

  Mr. D. Rogers

  Director

  Mr. D. S. Houle

  Chartered Surveyor

  GOOD HOPE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Doug Ellis

  Company Chairman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. M. J. Ansell

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. R. Collings

  Housewife

  Mr. J. Slater

  Estate Agency Consultant

  Mr. D. M. Owen

  Solicitor

  Mrs. V. Rao

  Retired Head Teacher

  SHROPSHIRE MENTAL HEALTH NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  John Winter

  Director

  50 51

  Occupation/Profession

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. A. James

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. K. Davies

  Adult Educationalist

  Mrs. J. M. Young

  Housewife

  Ms L. S. Owens

  Local Government Officer

  Mr. P. T. Roberts

  PR Consultant

  WALSGRAVE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Robert Jordan

  Ex-Managing Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. Evans

  Chartered Accountant

  Mr. H. Corker

  Retired Banker

  Mrs. P. A. Deeley

  Barrister

  Mrs. R. Stewart

  Housewife

  Mr. F. Bunting

  Chartered Accountant

  PRINCESS ROYAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Jeremy Beasley

  Company Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Miss H. Hluchoweckyj

  Building Society District Manager

  Mr. G. W. Bullock

  Personnel Manager

  Mr. M. J. Bolderston

  Director

  Miss M. J. Pursglove

  Company Director

  SOUTH WARWICKSHIRE GENERAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Jennifer Gove

  Businesswoman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. B. Willis

  Chief Executive

  Mrs. J. L. Mitchell

  Businesswoman

  Mr. C. Goody

  Industry Strategy Manager

  Sir William Lawrence

  General Manager

  Dr. L. M. Ashburner

  Senior Research Fellow

  BURTON HOSPITALS NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  David Elliot

  Company Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. G. Baron

  Housewife

  Mr. R. Heelis

  Solicitor

  Mrs. F. Lang

  Magistrate

  Mr. J. S. Dain

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. J. D. Paskett

  Journalist

  STAFFORDSHIRE AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Charles Boote

  Managing Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. J. Jessel

  Freelance Management Consultant

  Mrs. F. Beatty

  Former Public Relations Officer

  Mr. W. Gourlay

  Distribution Director

  Mr. J. Lloyd-Davies

  Retired Businessman

  Professor K. Lee

  Director, Keele University

  WEST MIDLANDS AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. H. Musgrove

  Company Chairman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. R. Clifford

  Agent, Bank of England

  Mrs. J. Moyle

  Managing Director

  Mr. O. Parmer

  Businessman

  Professor J. Robinson

  Retired Consultant Anaesthetist

  Mr. P. Leopold

  Ex-Assistant Chief Constable

  National health service trust chairmen are remunerated according to the unit turnover in 1988–89. The present annual rates are:

  Unit turnover 1988–89

  Band

  Rates per annum £

  In excess of £50 million

  Band 1

  19,285

  Between £20 million and £50 million

  Band 2

  17,145

  Less than £20 million

  Band 3

  15,125

  Non-executive directors of national health service trusts are remunerated at the rate of £5,000 per annum.

  Crisis Intervention Accommodation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) of 15 April,Official Report, column 672, how her Department defines crisis intervention accommodation.

  Mr. Bowis
  There is no standard definition. It is for health and local authorities to provide appropriate accommodation for local crisis intervention services. This can include mental health centres, hostels and ordinary housing.

  Health Trusts
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the rate of return on capital required from health trusts; how capital is defined; and how it is assessed.
  53
  Mr. Sackville
  Trusts are required to make a real pre-interest return of 6 per cent. of relevant net assets. The definition of relevant net assets (capital) and the calculation of the return are detailed in chapter 17 of the Trust Manual for Accounts, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Selected List Drugs
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the inclusion of contraceptives on the selected list scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 26 May at column 578.

  Contraceptives
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of restriction of choice of contraception on unplanned pregnancies.

  Dr. Mawhinny
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) on 18 January at col.97.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of(a) women and (b) men receiving free contraception in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, table 1 shows the number of first contracts in community and hospital family planning clinics, excluding those for whom a main method of contraception was not provided, and table 2, the number of patients for whom general medical practitioners claimed payment for provision of contraceptive services. As information is collected at differing dates, the tables relate to the last five-year period for which comprehensive information is available.

  Table 1: Number of first contacts at community and hospital family planning clinics (thousands)

  Total

  Female

  Male

  19861

  1,320

  1,295

  25

  1987–881

  1,227

  1,196

  31

  1988–891

  1,016

  986

  30

  1989–90

  994

  964

  31

  1990–91

  961

  931

  30

  1 For 1986, 1987–88 and 1988–89 detailed information by sex is not available and has been estimated.

  Table 2: Number of patients (at 1 October each year) for whom payment was due to general medical practitioners for the provision of contraceptive services in the year ended 1 October

  (thousands).

  Number ofClaims1

  1986

  2,570

  1987

  2,570

  1988

  2,660

  1989

  2,730

  1990

  2,860

  1 Figures relate to women only. The number of instances in these figures where advice alone was provided is not known.

  Relocation and Amalgamation
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the sections and organisations within her Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no further plans for relocation having completed the move of the national health service management executive to Leeds. There are no plans at present to amalgamate any parts of the Department.

  Health Authority Staff
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of reduction in regional health authority staffing levels is being proposed; and on what criteria this level was proposed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have told regional health authorities that they should reduce staffing levels to typically a maximum of 200. This reflects the changing role of RHAs as the national health service reforms are implemented. The NHS management functions and manpower review will make recommendations on the longer term future of RHAs. I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 12 May at columns 483–84 for terms of reference of this review.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacies in the City of Durham constituency area issue(a) fewer than 2,000 prescriptions per month and (b) more than 2,000 prescriptions per month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, in 1991–92 in Durham family health services authority, which includes the City of Durham constituency, 19 pharmacies were dispensing less than 2,000 prescriptions and 93 were dispensing more than 2,000 prescriptions per month on average throughout the year.

  Munchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the incidence of Munchhausen's Syndrome by proxy; how cases have been recorded; and how many subsequently disputed diagnoses have been made.

  Mr. Bowis
  Specific diagnostic information on this syndrome is not available centrally. It is known to be very rare.

  North Western Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on trends in patient demand in the North Western regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for North Western regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bruce Martin, chairman of the regional health authority, for details.

  Joint Replacements
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued in relation to a British standard for knee and hip joint replacement sets.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no single British standard for knee and hip joint replacement implants. National standards are defined through an interrelated system of around 40 British standards for orthopaedic implants and materials. Compliance with appropriate standards is called for in the Department of Health's requirements for quality systems for orthopaedic implants, published in 1990, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Births and abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–19 years: England and Wales1

  Births12 Age (years)

  Abortions Age (years)

  Year

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  1980

  2·6

  10·7

  27·6

  47·5

  66·6

  6·8

  15·8

  20·5

  22·5

  22·8

  1981

  2·4

  10·2

  24·4

  42·7

  61·7

  6·7

  15·1

  19·6

  22·1

  22·4

  1982

  2·4

  10·0

  24·5

  40·9

  58·6

  7·4

  15·8

  19·0

  21·0

  21·5

  1983

  2·8

  10·3

  24·2

  39·3

  55·6

  8·0

  16·5

  19·2

  20·7

  20·3

  1984

  2·9

  10·8

  25·5

  40·4

  55·7

  8·3

  17·8

  21·3

  22·5

  22·1

  1985

  3·2

  11·7

  27·5

  43·5

  58·4

  8·1

  17·5

  22·0

  24·1

  23·7

  1986

  3·1

  11·8

  28·1

  45·6

  59·7

  7·9

  16·8

  21·7

  24·9

  24·5

  1987

  3·2

  11·8

  28·5

  46·0

  62·0

  8·2

  16·7

  22·3

  26·1

  27·5

  1988

  3·2

  12·9

  29·9

  47·7

  63·3

  8·2

  18·6

  24·5

  28·6

  30·2

  1989

  3·6

  12·9

  29·4

  45·4

  61·2

  8·4

  18·1

  24·3

  28·2

  29·7

  1990

  3·7

  13·6

  31·4

  47·1

  61·8

  8·6

  18·0

  24·6

  29·5

  30·2

  1991

  4·1

  13·9

  30·7

  47·0

  61·9

  7·9

  16·4

  22·7

  26·7

  29·0

  1992

  4·0

  13·2

  29·6

  45·4

  59·3

  Not yet available

  1 The populations used as the denominators for 1991 rates are the provisional estimates based on the 1991 Census. The denominators for the 1992 rates are projected populations.

  2 Live births and still births combined.

  Health Authority Chairmen
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage increases in salaries have been awarded to chairmen of regional health authorities, district health authorities and family health service authorities in respect of financial years(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93 in each region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Percentage increases awarded to chairmen of regional health authorities, district health authorities and family health services authorities since April 1990 are shown in the table. The same rates of increase applied in each region.

  Chairmen's remuneration: Percentage increases

  Chairmen

  1 April 1990

  1 January 1991

  1 April 1991

  1 December 1991

  RHA

  51·8

  1·0

  7·5

  1·8

  DHA

  Band 1

  9·7

  1·0

  7·5

  1·8

  Band 2

  24·4

  1·0

  7·5

  1·8

  Band 3

  41·3

  1·0

  7·5

  1·8

  FHSA

  Band 1

  127·9

  1·0

  7·5

  1·8

  Band 2

  112·0

  1·0

  7·5

  1·8

  Band 3

  96·1

  1·0

  7·5

  1·8

  Notes: 1. The increases effective from 1 April 1990 resulted from a restructuring of chairmen's remuneration to reflect more accurately the level of responsibility and time commitment involved.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set for the reduction of unwanted teenage pregnancies.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", includes the target to reduce the rate of conceptions among the under-16s by at least 50 per cent. by the year 2000. Measures which reduce pregnancies in the under-16s may also be expected to exert a similar effect on unwanted pregnancies in the over-16s.

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the rate of(a) births and (b) abortions per thousand women aged (i) 15, (ii) 16, (iii) 17, (iv) 18 and (v) 19 years in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  2. Three separate bands for DHA and family practitioner committee (later FHSA) chairmen's remuneration were introduced with effect from I April 1990.

  3. The increase effective from I December 1991 was the second stage of the award for 1991–92 and represented 2 per cent. of the I January 1991 rate.

  4. Increases are rounded to the nearest decimal place.

  Mental Health Act
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Formal admissions to national health service hospitals, private nursing homes and special hospitals under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the five years for which data are available are shown in the table.

  Year

  Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, England

  1985

  7,902

  1986

  8,387

  1987–88

  8,867

  1988–89

  9,517

  1989–90

  9,534

  The numbers are of admissions, not persons, as a person could be admitted more than once during the year. Data for 1987–88 onwards are on a financial year basis.

  Liquid Paraffin Oil
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent liquid paraffin oil is now used as a laxative; what information her Department has concerning any adverse effects on human health arising from the regular use of this medicine; whether any advice has been given to pharmacists concerning dosage and duration of use; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Preparations containing liquid paraffin for use as laxatives are only indicated for the symptomatic relief of constipation. Prolonged regular use may be associated with inflammatory lesions in the gastrointestinal tract, lipoid pneumonia due to inadvertent inhalation and interference with absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. The Committee on Safety of Medicines issued advice regarding the use of liquid paraffin in its bulletin Current Problems Number 28, sent to all doctors and pharmacists in May 1990, a copy of which is available in the Library. The CSM advice is also included in the British National Formulary, which the Department issues free of charge to all prescribers twice yearly.

  Preparations containing liquid paraffin for use as laxatives are not available directly to the public and may only be bought from pharmacies under the supervision of a pharmacist, where the pack size which may be sold is limited to 160 ml, approximately one week's supply. Prolonged use is not advised and these preparations are contra-indicated for children under three years of age. Package labels clearly state that
  "repeated use is not recommended"

  and
  "to consult your doctor if laxatives are needed every day, if you have persistent abdominal pain or a condition which makes swallowing difficult".

  Lewisham Hospital Trust
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what undertakings Sir Philip Harris has given as to the proportion of his time to be devoted to the chairmanship of the Lewisham Hospital Trust relative to business and other activities; and if she will now review his appointment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All national health service trust chairmen are expected to devote at least the equivalent of three working days per week to their duties. I have no reason to believe that Sir Philip Harris will not be in a position to make this commitment and I have no plans to review his appointment.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the latest estimates by the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in England and Wales, together in each case with the equivalent year's electoral registration figures, also expressed as a percentage of these population estimates.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Office of Population Census and Surveys expect to publish a set of final mid-1991 population estimates, taking account of the later 1991 census results, towards the end of this month. Updated estimates relating to mid-1992 will be published in 58
  October. I will arrange for comparisons between 1992 electorates and final mid-1991 estimates, and later between 1993 electorates and mid-1992 estimates, for local authority areas in England and Wales to be placed in the Library as soon as possible. No population estimates are currently available for parliamentary constituencies. However, census data for parliamentary constituencies, which will include population counts, will be available later this year.

  Special Therapy Facilities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources she plans to provide to health authorities to meet their statutory responsibilities to provide special facilities for(a) speech therapy, (b) physiotherapy and (c) occupational therapy; and what representations she has received on the level of funding currently provided.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health authorities and general practitioner fund holders are responsible for purchasing speech therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy services to meet the needs of their residents in the light of their judgment of priorities and within the resources available to them.

  NHS Funding
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken or commissioned by the Government into the possibility of funding the NHS in part or wholly by a new system of health insurance or tokens.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken or commissioned by the Government into the possibility of hospital or primary care charges related to the ability to pay.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Unregistered Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a doctor with medical qualifications from another country may practise as a medical practitioner in this country without registering with the General Medical Council.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All doctors wishing to work as medical practitioners in the United Kingdom must be registered with the General Medical Council. An overseas qualified doctor must obtain the necessary registration from the General Medical Council in order to engage in any professional employment as a medical practitioner in the United Kingdom.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether United Kingdom pharmacists may dispense prescription-only medicines prescribed by doctors not registered with the General Medical Council.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the funding assessment that has been made by each of the London borough councils to support a person living in residential care under the care in the community legislation;

  (2) what advice she has given to people or organisations running residential care homes in areas where the present agreed rates of support are below existing income support benefits; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what account local authorities are required to take of religious requirements when assessing what funding will be paid for a resident living in a residential home under the existing care in the community legislation; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) what right of appeal exists for people running residential care homes if they disagree with the funding assessment made by the local authority for a resident living within the home; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Contracts for residential care or nursing home services are negotiated and agreed between local authorities and home owners. Local authorities are not required to submit details of the agreements reached.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement as to the procedures to be followed in respect of an at-risk person resident within a borough that has already spent its care in the community budget before a full assessment has been made of the person's health to ensure the protection of the welfare of that person.

  Mr. Bowis
  The assessment of health needs and the provision of health services remain the responsibilities of health authorities. All local authorities are receiving special transitional grants which will enable them to meet their new community care responsibilities; the grants represent only a proportion of any authority's personal social services resources. It is for local authorities to set priorities and manage their resources sensibly.

  Water Disconnections (Public Health)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions she has had with the Chief Medical Officer about the potential threat to public health caused by the disconnection of water to domestic dwellings;

  (2) what action she has taken through the Chief Medical Officer to examine the implications of the number of notifiable cases of dysentery and hepatitis A in the last three months.

  Mr. Sackville
  We regularly discuss with the Chief Medical Officer any possible threats to public health. Provisional figures indicate that in the first three months of this year reported cases of Shigella sonnei—the principal causative organism of dysentery in the United Kingdom —and hepatitis A show a fall over the same period last year.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) midwives were in training in each health region in each year since 1979.
  60
  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) district nurses and (b) community midwives were employed in the NHS in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 11 February at cols. 751–52, for information on national health service district nurses. Information on community midwives is shown in the table.

  National health service community midwifery staff England September 1987 to September 1991 (whole-time equivalents)

  Number

  1987

  4,100

  1988

  4,110

  1989

  4,070

  1990

  4,200

  1991

  4,560

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified nursing staff are employed by(a) voluntary organisations and (b) local authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Grants
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of grants which have been approved by her Department under the section 64 general scheme of grants in the financial year starting on 1 April distinguishing between(a) existing core grants, (b) new core grants and (c) new project grants and the total funds allocated under each category.

  Mr. Sackville
  By 28 May 1993 grant approval letters under the section 64 general scheme had been issued for 200 existing core grants, 29 new core grants and 52 new project grants. The total sums involved are £10,569,000, £602,000 and £1,220,000 respectively. A further 88 approval letters had also been issued for funds totalling £2,791,000 in respect of existing project and capital grants. Final details of grants totalling approximately £4 million are currently being settled. The total provision for 1993–94 is £19,207,000.

  Hospital Fire Officers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals do not have a fire officer currently in post; and if she will list them.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Guidance to health service employers on the appointment of officers responsible for fire safety is set out in the Department's document "FIRECODE—Policy and Principles". A copy of the relevant extract from this document will be placed in the Library.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary fo State for Health what assessment she has made of whether competitive tendering by district health authorities is effectively supervised by regional health authorities; and if she will make a statement.
  61
  Mr. Sackville
  None. Following the successful reforms of the national health service all purchasers and providers are charged to ensure that they receive good quality and value for money on behalf of their patients.

  Waiting Times, Trent Region
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the waiting time for patients for operations in the Trent regional health authority in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting time information by regional health authority is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", published twice a year, copies of which are available in the Library. Provisional figures for March 1993 show that, over the last three years, Trent regional health authority has reduced the number of patients waiting over a year by 31 per cent.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is within the South East Thames regional health authority area for cervical cancer screening; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provision for cervical cancer screening is the responsibility of the appropriate regional health authority. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Dr. Gabriel Scally, director of public health of South East Thames health authority for details.

  HIV/AIDS and Drug Abuse
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the criteria used in allocating resources to health authorities for their work in connection with(a) HIV/AIDS and (b) drug abuse, including the criteria in respect of (i) education and (ii) prevention in these areas; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Allocations to regional health authorities for the development of services for the treatment and care of people with HIV and AIDS are made on the basis of each region's HIV and AIDS prevalence and the costs of treatment. Allocations to regions for developing local HIV prevention work with their resident populations are made according to weighted capitation principles.

  Funding for drugs services, including for work to prevent the spread of HIV among drug users and to their sexual partners, is based on the number of the population in each region aged between 15 and 34. Allocations have also been made as a contribution to the cost of methadone prescribing as part of a planned programme of treatment, and on the basis of regions' reported usage.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list under the relevant specialty heading the names of the members of each of the six specialty review teams which examined specialty work at St. Bartholomew's hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of members of each of the six specialty review teams are as follows:

  Cardiac
  62

  Professor Geoffrey Smith, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield (Chairman)

  Mr. John James, Kensington Chelsea and Westminster Commissioning Agency

  Professor Keith Fox, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  Dr. Andrew MacLeod, Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. John Bailey, Glenfield Unit, Leicester

  Dr. Ewen Bramwell, GP, Dorking

  Dr. Don Bethune, Papworth Hospital, Cambridge

  Ms Ann Townsend, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle

  Professor Martin Buxton, Brunel University

  Sir Richard Lloyd, British Heart Foundation

  Neurosciences

  Mr. Thomas Hide, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow(Chairman)

  Ms Victoria Hardman, Bloomsbury and Islington Health Authority

  Professor Alastair Compston, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge

  Dr. Cicely Partridge, Kings College, London

  Ms Kate Newlands, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford

  Ms Mary Baker, Parkinson's Disease Society

  Dr. Colin Smith GP, Rochester

  Plastics and Burns

  Mr. Philip Sykes, St. Lawrence's Hospital, Chepstow (Chairman)

  Ms Mary Whitty, Brent and Harrow Health Authority

  Mr. John H. James, Shotley Bridge Hospital, Durham

  Mr. Douglas Murray, Wardsley Hospital, Stourbridge

  Dr. Tom Davies GP, Peterborough

  Sir Geoffrey Slaney, lately University of Birmingham

  Mrs. Anne Driver, Leicester Royal Infirmary

  Renal

  Professor Netar Mallick, Manchester Royal Infirmary (Chairman)

  Mr. Peter Coe, Tower Hamlets Health Authority

  Dr. Mary McGeown, Queen's University, Belfast

  Dr. Andrew Williams, Swansea Hospital

  Professor Denis Pereira Gray, Exeter University

  Mr. James Wellbeloved, lately National Kidney Research Fund

  Dr. John Evans, United Kingdom Transplant Support Services Authority

  Mrs. Linda Whitworth, Manchester Royal Infirmary

  Professor David Kerr, Royal Postgraduate Medical School

  Professor J. R. Salaman, Royal Infirmary, Cardiff

  Dr. Geoffrey Maidment, King Edwards VII Hospital, Windsor

  Mr. Jonathan Stopes-Roe, City and East London Health Authority

  Cancer

  Mr. Christopher Paine, Royal College of Radiologists (Chairman)

  Mr. Michael Bellamy, Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow Commissioning Agency

  Professor Stanley Kaye, University of Glasgow

  Professor Robert Mansell, University Hospital of Wales

  Dr. Hugh Sanderson, National Case Mix, Wessex RHA

  Mrs. Gill Oliver, Clatterbridge Hospital, The Wirral

  Dr. Elizabeth Murray GP, London

  Professor Mark Baker, Yorkshire RHA

  Ms Loretta Tinckham, Cancer Relief MacMillan Fund

  Dr. Graham Thorpe, Countess Mountbatten Hospital, Southampton

  Children's Specialist Services

  Professor Sir David Hull, University Hospital Nottingham (Chairman)

  Mr. Martin Roberts, Wandsworth Health Authority

  Dr. Roderick MacFaul, Pinderfields Hospital, Wakefield

  Mrs. A. M. Craft, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle

  Lady Jean Lovell Davies, Caring for Sick Children in the Health Services

  Dr. Robert Cooper, Solihull Health Authority

  Dr. John Oldham GP, Glossop, Derbyshire

  63

  Professor David Lloyd, Institute of Child Health, Liverpool

  Ms Zarrina Kurtz, South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Dr. Peter Morris, Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland

  Military Hospital Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she intends taking to ensure that the loss of military hospital beds does not add to civilian waiting list times.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the responsibility of district health authorities, as purchasers of health care, to ensure, in consultation with their providers, that the patients charter waiting time guarantees and local waiting times standards are met.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from head injuries in England in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Numbers of deaths where the underlying cause was recorded as being from a head injury (1 ICDs 800–804 and 850–854) in England 1979–1992

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1979

  2,807

  1,275

  4,082

  1980

  2,701

  1,299

  4,000

  1981

  2,481

  1,108

  3,589

  1982

  2,569

  1,167

  3,736

  1983

  2,613

  1,219

  3,832

  1984

  2,644

  1,185

  3,829

  1985

  2,536

  1,170

  3,706

  1986

  2,543

  1,159

  3,702

  1987

  2,601

  1,175

  3,776

  1988

  2,505

  1,095

  3,600

  1989

  2,590

  1,094

  3,684

  1990

  2,753

  1,092

  3,845

  1991

  2,418

  1,050

  3,468

  1992

  2,208

  1,002

  3,210

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Live Births
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many live births there were in each hospital in Lancashire in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in table:

  Livebirths in Lancashire Hospitals 1989–1992

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Sharoe Green Hospital, Preston

  4,549

  4,957

  4,719

  4,423

  Royal Preston Hospital

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Queens Park Hospital, Blackburn

  3,494

  3,669

  3,682

  3,628

  Victoria Hospital, Blackpool

  3,535

  3,564

  3,583

  3,351

  Burnley General Hospital

  2,971

  3,010

  3,004

  2,834

  Royal Lancaster Infirmary

  1,908

  1,921

  1,998

  1,848

  Lancaster Moor Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Ormskirk and District General Hospital

  1,323

  1,437

  1,307

  1,202

  Chorley and District Hospital

  236

  243

  192

  188

  Victoria Hospital, Accrington

  192

  187

  205

  140

  Bramley Meade Maternity Hospital, Whalley

  134

  70

  —

  —

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance or advice has been issued by her Department on payments from the extra-contractual referrals budgets of health authorities for treatment for patients who in the past have paid for similar treatments themselves in the private sector.

  Mr. Sackville
  Requests for extra-contractual referrals (ECRs) for this group of patients should be considered in the same way as any other ECR request. Guidance on handling ECRs was issued under cover of EL(92)60 on 9 September 1992, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each district health authority, who have in the past paid for treatment in the private sector, have been refused money from extra-contractual referrals budgets for similar treatments.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Liver Transplants
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under one year of age have been diagnosed as suffering from biliary atresia in each year from 1987; how many of them were placed on a waiting list for liver transplant in each of those years; and in how many of those cases in each year a liver transplant operation was performed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. Published reports suggest that the incidence of extra hepatic biliary atresia is about one in 14,000 infants. From this it is estimated that in England and Wales where about 700,000 infants are born each year, of whom 93 per cent. survive the first year there would be about 50 cases annually. The table shows the number of children in the United Kingdom aged less than one year who joined the liver transplant waiting list in each year from 1987, and the number transplanted. It has not been possible to identify the specific conditions from which these children were suffering.

  Year

  Number of children aged less than one year joining the liver waiting list for the first time (or for the first time since previous transplant)

  Number of these children transplanted

  1987

  25

  7

  1988

  17

  8

  1989

  14

  12

  1990

  13

  9

  1991

  22

  21

  1992

  28

  22

  1993

  12

  71

  1 Up to 28 May 1993. Four children under age one who joined the waiting list for livers in 1993 are still awaiting transplant as at 28 May 1993. Nine children appear in the table more than once due to retransplants while aged less than one year. Figures supplied by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  Abortion
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions have been performed by the NHS in each year since 1979.
  65
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table; 1991 is the last complete year for which information is available, 1992 data (January-March) are provisional.

  Number of abortions performed in NHS facilities and in non-NHS facilities under agency agreement England and Wales 1979–1992

  Year

  Number of NHS abortions

  Number of "Agency" abortions

  1979

  55,767

  Data not available before 1981

  1980

  60,818

  1981

  61,276

  2,343

  1982

  62,532

  4,425

  1983

  62,817

  4,620

  1984

  64,926

  4,916

  1985

  65,254

  5,938

  1986

  67,529

  6,839

  1987

  69,505

  8,804

  1988

  69,177

  9,380

  1989

  70,786

  9,207

  1990

  73,582

  9,720

  1991

  75,245

  9,208

  19921

  19,301

  2,881

  1 Provisional January-March 1992.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her reply of 21 May,Official Report, columns 333–34, if she is giving consideration to adding persons who are at risk of exposure to radiation to the categories of persons asked not to donate blood for the National Blood Transfusion Service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Transfusion Service does not consider that such persons, in general, should be excluded from donating blood. The decision whether or not to accept such a person as a donor depends on the individual's own medical history.

  Embryology
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many research projects using human embryos have been licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority since its inception.

  Mr. Sackville
  Thirty-five.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from skin cancer in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of people who have died from skin cancer in England and Wales 1979–92

  ICD

  172 (Malignant melanoma of skin)

  173 (Other malignant neoplasm of skin)

  1979

  801

  383

  1980

  813

  366

  1981

  864

  381

  1982

  944

  378

  1983

  853

  408

  1984

  993

  439

  66

  ICD

  172 (Malignant melanoma of skin)

  173 (Other malignant neoplasm of skin)

  1985

  987

  462

  1986

  1,040

  412

  1987

  1,030

  441

  1988

  1,078

  430

  1989

  1,099

  447

  1990

  1,170

  436

  1991

  1,169

  465

  1992

  1,142

  486

  Bone Cancer
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were diagnosed as suffering from bone cancer in England in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of cases of bone cancer (International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, code 170) registered in England in each of the years 1979 to 1987, the last year for which information is available, is shown in the table.

  Registrations of bone cancer, 1979–87 England ICD 170, 9th revision

  Year

  Males

  Females

  1979

  232

  179

  1980

  214

  159

  1981

  244

  205

  1982

  217

  178

  1983

  230

  171

  1984

  226

  183

  1985

  190

  194

  1986

  189

  189

  1987

  218

  184

  Number of cases for earlier years (1971 to 1978) are available, and can be found in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication 'Cancer statistics: registrations' series MB1 nos. 1–10; comparisons with figures for 1979 onwards, however, will be affected by the change from the 8th revision of the ICD to the 9th revision.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance and regulations limit the proportion of private practice in NHS trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under section 5(9) and paragraph 14 of schedule 2 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, NHS trusts may make accommodation and services available for patients who give undertakings to pay such charges as the trust determines. In so doing, there must be no significant interference with the performance by the trust of its obligations under NHS contracts or imposed by order.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trust hospitals in London have not signed contracts with their local health authority for 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All national health service trust hospitals in London' have agreed contracts with their host health authorities. Only two—the Royal Free Hospital NHS trust and the Royal London NHS trust have yet to be signed.
  67
  1 London has been taken as the inner London health authorities identified in the "Report of the inquiry into London's Health Service, Medical Education and Research" namely: Bloomsbury and Islington, Camberwell, City and Hackney, Hampstead, Haringey, Lewisham and North Southwark, Newham, Parkside, Riverside, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and West Lambeth district health authorities.

  Nurses
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the earnings of pupil nurses, grade A nurses aged under 18 years, grade A nurses aged over 18 years and nurses in each grade from B to I in real terms at January 1993 prices for each year since 1990–91; and if he will provide estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: The available information is shown in the table. Estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are not available.

  Average earnings1 of full-time staff at 1992–93 prices2

  Nurses

  1990–91£

  1991–92£

  1992–93£

  Students/Pupils

  7,990

  8,670

  9,070

  Grade A3

  9,030

  9,210

  9,710

  Grade B

  10,120

  10,570

  11,000

  Grade C

  12,100

  12,500

  12,820

  Grade D

  12,470

  12,760

  13,240

  Grade E

  14,340

  14,800

  15,430

  Grade F

  17,050

  17,410

  17,900

  Grade G

  18,750

  19,290

  19,370

  Grade H

  19,670

  20,470

  20,920

  Grade I

  22,560

  23,310

  23,530

  Note:

  1 earnings are basic pay plus allowances

  2 Gross domestic product deflator used to calculate earnings in real terms

  3 age breakdown is not readily available

  NHS Earnings
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the earnings of medical and dental house officers, senior house officers, consultants on all scales, senior hospital medical and dental officers, hospital practitioners, consultants in public health medicine and senior dental officers in real terms at January 1993 prices for each year since 1990–91; and if she will provide estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: The information which is available is shown in the table. Estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are not available. The total earnings of hospital practitioners are not available on a comparable basis to other doctors in the hospital sector as they also receive earnings as general practitioners.

  Average earnings1 of full-time staff at 1992–93 prices2

  1990–91£

  1991–92£

  1992–93£

  House officers

  15,890

  16,920

  19,550

  Senior house officers

  22,680

  23,260

  26,840

  Senior dental officers

  33,870

  33,960

  34,490

  Consultants3

  45,060

  47,780

  49,820

  Consultants in Community Health Med.

  46,240

  46,640

  47,570

  1 Earnings are basic pay plus allowances.

  2 Gross domestic product deflator is used to calculate earnings in real terms.

  3 Includes senior hospital medical and dental officers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Citizenship
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the recommendations of the Speaker's Commission on citizenship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The recommendations of the 1990 report of the Commission on Citizenship have been considered in the Home Office.

  The Government regard citizenship in its widest sense as an issue of fundamental importance and take every opportunity to encourage individuals and companies alike to be aware of, and act on, their responsibilities in the community. The wide-ranging report made a contribution to the discussion of these issues.

  The report's recommendations covered many departmental interests and those falling within the Home Office's remit have been borne in mind in the course of its work.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for The Home Department how many applications have been made in each year since 1985 for registration as British nationals (overseas); and how many have been(a) granted, (b) refused and (c) are still pending.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Hong Kong British Dependent Territories citizens are entitled to BN(0) status and no applications have been refused. BN(0) registrations first took place in 1987. Applications received and registered since then are as follows:

  Applications

  Year

  Received

  Registered

  11987

  18,366

  16,275

  1988

  31,916

  30,222

  1989

  53,222

  49,519

  1990

  80,213

  78,265

  1991

  101,534

  107,423

  1992

  156,511

  149,302

  21993

  72,713

  66,294

  Total

  514,475

  497,300

  1 (from July).

  2 (to April).

  The number of applications outstanding at end April 1993 was 17,175.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action Her Majesty's Government have taken to implement within the United Kingdom the fire safety provisions of the EC directives commonly known as the workplace and framework directives, by 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Proposals to implement these provisions by regulations made under section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 were issued for consultation in May 1992. Many welcomed our proposals, but some valid criticisms emerged. We therefore decided that the draft regulations and associated guidance should not take effect on 1 January 1993, as originally planned.
  69
  We hope to issue revised proposals for Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations and related guidance for consultation in the summer. This will enable us to consider any comments which we receive and make the regulations to take effect on or after 1 April 1994.

  High Crime Areas
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers about the targeting of police resources to areas with a high incidence of crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Decisions about the use of resources are the responsibility of chief officers of police. These matters do not usually arise in our discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources he will make available in the next two financial years to provide grants to people in the high crime areas for additional household and security measures.

  Mr. Maclean
  Home Office financial support for local crime prevention activity is channelled through the safer cities projects currently established in 20 high-crime areas in England. These projects provide financial and other assistance for crime prevention work which may include schemes for improving household security in accordance with locally determined priorities. The 16 longer-established projects in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Hartlepool, Hull, Islington, Lewisham, Nottingham, Rochdale, Salford, Sunderland, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, Wirral and Wolverhampton—each have a grants budget of £100,000 for the year ending 31 March 1994, by which date Home Office funding for these projects is due to come to an end. The four more recently established projects—in Derby, Hammersmith and Fulham, Leicester and Middlesborough—each have a grants budget of £250,000 for 1993–94; the size of these budgets in future years has yet to be determined.

  A second phase of safer cities is to be established in areas which have not yet benefited from this initiative in accordance with the announcement made by my predecessor in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 11 January, column 601, and the accompanying statement, a copy of which is in the Library. The grants budget for these new projects has yet to be determined.

  In addition to this Home Office programme, Department of Environment programmes including estates action and city challenge also provide support for measures aimed at improving improved household security.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase police resources in areas of rising crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This Government have provided very substantial additional resources to the police service. It is for chief constables to decide how to deploy their resources to the best effect within their force area. Forces are encouraged to look closely at how effectively their resources are deployed so as to meet the demands which are made of them.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made in Hong Kong in each year since 1985 for naturalisation as British dependent territories citizens; and how many have been(a) granted, (b) refused and (c) are still pending.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is as follows:

  Applications

  Year

  Made

  Granted

  Refused

  Withdrawn

  1985

  844

  704

  152

  86

  1986

  861

  759

  100

  45

  1987

  1,233

  808

  70

  23

  1988

  1,016

  1,074

  60

  36

  1989

  3,098

  1,098

  73

  26

  1990

  12,543

  1,699

  95

  39

  1991

  7,588

  11,463

  399

  270

  1992

  2,909

  8,846

  493

  247

  11993

  1,505

  885

  55

  19

  Totals

  31,597

  27,336

  1,497

  791

  1 (to April).

  Note: Year of application and year of determination are different in most cases.

  The number of applications outstanding at the end of April 1993 was 2,981.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions are taking place on the provisions of the British Nationality Order under the Hong Kong Act 1984 on the acquisition of British national (overseas) status.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Discussions have been taking place between Her Majesty's Government, the Hong Kong Government and members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. We expect to have further discussions with a delegation from the Legislative Council House Committee in London this week.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter either the time in which applications are permitted or the method of application for British National (Overseas) status for British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Work is in hand to prepare a draft Order in Council requiring applications for British National (Overseas) status to be made in time to allow the necessary work to be completed before the powers to register such applicants and issue them with BN(O) passports lapse on 1 July 1997. It is proposed to specify deadlines according to age group with provision for late applications to be considered where there are special circumstances. We have no plans for any change in the method of application.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young adult offenders were received into(a) Feltham prison, (b) Hull prison and (c) Leeds prison under sentence (i) in the last week for which figures are available, (ii) in the week ending 27 February and (iii) in the week ending 28 November 1992; and how many previous convictions they had individually and on average.
  71
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alun Michael, dated June 1993:

  RECEPTIONS INTO FELTHAM, HULL AND LEEDS

  The Secretary of State has asked me in the absence of the Director General from the office to write to you directly in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of sentenced young adult offenders received into Feltham, Leeds and Hull prisons and how many previous convictions they had individually and on average.

  The information on receptions for the periods you have requested is not yet available. The readily available information relates to the population of sentenced prisoners (aged under 21) at Leeds, Hull and Feltham on 30 November 1992 and 28 February and 30 April 1993 and is given in Table 1.

  As regard previous convictions information for November 1992 is not available. Available information for previous convictions relates to inmates who were in the prison

  Table 2

  Population under sentence in Feltham on 28 February and 30 April 1993 by previous convictions1

  Date

  Population

  Previous convictions nil or not recorded2

  Number of previous convictions

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6–10

  11 and over

  28 February 1993

  448

  422

  3

  2

  3

  2

  1

  9

  6

  30 April 1993

  493

  473

  3

  2

  3

  1

  1

  6

  4

  1 Previous conviction information is not recorded for persons committed for non-payment of a fine.

  2 Not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage of(a) men and (b) women under the age of 21 years who were part of the prison population in England and Wales on 24 May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated June 1993:

  Percentage of men and women aged under 21 who are part of the prison population in England and Wales

  The Home Secretary has asked me in the absence of the Director General from the office, to write to you directly in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the percentage of (a) men and (b) women under the age of 21 years who were part of the prison population in England and Wales on 24 May 1993.

  The last available information is based on the prison population aged under 21 on 30 April 1993. It shows that 0·39 per cent. of males aged 15 to 20 and 0·01 per cent. of females aged 15 to 20 in England and Wales were part of the prison population in Prison Service establishments on that date.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of prisoners of United Kingdom nationality who were serving prison sentences in overseas countries who have been transferred to prisons in the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of their sentences in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.
  72
  population of these establishments on 28 February and 30 April 1993 and is shown in Table 2. I am afraid that this table provides little useful information because, owing to a computer problem, it is not possible to distinguish prisoners with no previous convictions from those for whom this information is not recorded.

  Table 1 Population aged under 211 under sentence in prison service establishments in England and Wales on: 30 November 1992, 28 February and 31 March 19932

  Number of prisoners

  Date

  Leeds

  Feltham

  Hull

  30 November 1992

  —

  386

  —

  28 February 1993

  —

  448

  —

  30 April 1993

  —

  493

  —

  1 Includes a small number of prisoners aged 21 held in the young offenders' institution at Feltham.

  2 Includes those sentenced for non-payment of a fine.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated June 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your Question about the transfer to this country from abroad of prisoners of United Kingdom nationality.

  The number of prisoners of United Kingdom nationality transferred to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of their sentences is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  0

  1991

  14

  1992

  17

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for The Home Department what was the prison population in each of the 12 member states of the EC as of the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available information on the prison population for all 12 member states of the EC relates to September 1990. These figures are in table 2 of the Council of Europe Prison Information Bulletin, No. 16, a copy of which is in the Library. Data for September 1991 have been collected independently from a number of EC countries and was given in reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on 9 February, cols.532–34.

  An article on "International comparisons of prison populations" by Collier and Tarling—Home Office research bulletin No. 23, pages 48 to 54—showed that the figures for different countries are unlikely to be strictly comparable because the definitions of prisons and prisoners vary from one country to another, reflecting different legal and administrative systems. Examples of

  73
  differences in the definitions are the inclusion or exclusion in a country's figures of juvenile offenders and mentally disordered offenders.

  False Passports
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State ror the Home Department (1) how many false passports have been confiscated by immigration officers in each year from 1978;

  (2) how many people have been arrested for trying to enter or leave the United Kingdom on a false passport in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available in the form requested. The numbers of forged and improperly held travel documents detected by the Immigration Service at ports and airports in the United Kingdom since October 1988 are as follows:

  Number

  11988

  613

  1989

  2,134

  1990

  3,772

  1991

  3,730

  1992

  2,809

  1 (1 October to 31 December only).

  Asylum
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the signatories of the Dublin convention determining the state responsible for examin-ing an application for asylum submitted in one of the member states of the European Communities have now ratified that convention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Five—Denmark, Greece, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom; and I understand that in Luxembourg the parliamentary procedures necessary for ratification have been completed.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the proposal presented to the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting on 30 November in London of the ad hoc group, immigration, for a manual of European asylum practices.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The paper containing the proposal was a working document of no lasting significance. But I shall place in the Library a copy of the manual itself—a compilation of texts on asylum adopted by Ministers responsible for immigration.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the report approved by the Ministers responsible for immigration in their meeting in London on 30 November on countries on which there is generally no serious risk of persecution will be implemented into the United Kingdom law or practice in respect of asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have no present plans formally to designate any countries of origin of asylum seekers as ones in which there is generally no serious risk of persecution. However, the framework contained in the ministerial conclusions is a useful guide for the assessment of conditions in particular countries in the consideration of individual asylum claims.
  74
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken or plans to take to implement into domestic legislation the resolution on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum agreed at the Westminster meeting of the Ministers responsible for immigration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill is consistent with the principles of this resolution. We have no plans for any further legislation on this subject.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The cost of the Home Office market-testing programme between November 1991 until March 1993 was £1·036 million. The number of staff employed full time on market testing as at 1 June 1993 was 56. The future cost of market testing will be determined by the nature of subsequent market-testing programmes.

  The Department has used the following external consultancies:

  Arthur Walton and Partners

  Corporate Renewal Associates

  Ernst and Young

  Peat Marwick

  LEK

  PA Consulting

  Price Waterhouse

  Shreeveport

  Touche Ross

  Worthy Associates

  Our policy is for consultants to be engaged as a result of a competitive tender process unless there are particular circumstances which warrant single tender action.

  Local Authority Prosecutions
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be in a position to reply to the letter dated 17 February from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed enclosing representations from Castle Morpeth council about local authority prosecutions and the Criminal Justice Act.

  Mr. Howard
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 4 June.

  Electoral System
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on his Department's review of electoral law and procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The five working groups which are looking at different aspects of the electoral process are expected to report their findings during the summer. When they have done so, representatives of the political parties, returning officers and the local authority associations will be invited to discuss the reports at a meeting in the autumn.

  Escapes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded instances of escapes from Crown courts have occurred in each of the last 10 years.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alun Michael, dated June 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many recorded instances of escapes from Crown Courts have occurred in each of the last 10 years.

  The information requested is available centrally only for prisoners who have escaped from Crown Courts since 20 June 1988. The number of Crown Court escapes since that date is set out in the table below:

  Incidents

  Prisoners

  11988

  9

  9

  1989

  9

  11

  1990

  8

  11

  1991

  10

  12

  1992

  10

  10

  1(from 20 June 1988).

  Foreign Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of foreign nationals serving prison sentences in the United Kingdom who have been transferred to their country of origin to serve the remainder of their prison sentences in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated June 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your Question about the transfer of prisoners of foreign nationality to their country of origin.

  The number of foreign nationals transferred from the United Kingdom to their country of origin there to serve the remainder of their sentence is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  13

  18

  17

  Mr. Maurice Bland
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons certain privileges have been withdrawn from prisoner Mr. Maurice Bland.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Bland has been at Rudgate prison since his transfer from Lindholme prison on 21 April 1993. No privileges have been withdrawn from him.
  76
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to implement the recommendation of December 1992 that Mr. Maurice Bland be transferred from HMP Rudgate to an open prison; and what is the reason for the delay;

  (2) when he will implement to recommendations of the Parole Board in respect of Mr. Maurice Bland.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Parole Board recommendation that Mr. Bland should be transferred to an open prison was implemented on 12 March 1993 when he was transferred to HMP Rudgate. The board also recommended that a further review of the case should be carried out after 12 months and that home leave should commence as soon as possible after transfer. Mr. Bland has been informed that an internal review of his case will be held in April 1994, and that he will be able to take short home leave six months after arrival at Rudgate.

  Greyhound Racing
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consultative discussions on the deregulation of the greyhound totalisator and on section 19 of the Betting and Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963; and when he expects to announce the results.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The proposals for changes to the statutory controls on greyhound racing are under active consideration in consultation with the industry and local authorities. We hope to report our conclusions by early summer.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to curb the increase in crimes of violence and sexual attacks.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are committed to tackling all crime, including that part of it—5 per cent. of all recorded crime—which is violent or sexual, across a broad front. With Government support and with the support of the whole community, the police will continue to give a high priority to the prevention and detection of crimes involving sex or violence, where there is already a high clear-up rate, and to encourage victims, not least victims of racial or domestic violence, to report offences.

  We will also keep under constant review the penalties available to the courts. For the worst sorts of crime, including homicide, rape, robbery and the most serious wounding, life imprisonment is already available. The Government believe that violent and sexual offending should be severely punished. That is why the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provides courts with powers to impose a longer sentence than would be justified by the seriousness of the offence alone upon a violent or sexual offender if such a sentence is necessary to protect the public from further harm. We will not hesitate to take further measures, if we are convinced that they are necessary.

  Shotgun Thefts
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many thefts of shotguns were reported for each of the last three years for which figures are available.
  77
  Mr. Maclean
  The number of offences of burglary and theft in which shotguns were reported to have been stolen for the last three years can be found in table 3·11 of Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1991. Copies of this publication are in the Library.

  Airport Detention Centres
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which private firms hold contracts for providing security at the detention centres at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Stansted.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Custodial services at the immigration detention centres at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are provided under contract by Group 4 Total Security Ltd.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed under the current provisions for funding under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966; and what research has been carried out into the future level of activities so funded.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not kept in the form requested in the first part of the question. However, currently 10,066·5 full-time equivalent posts are approved for section 11 funding. The grant is intended to support the cost of employing staff to provide services additional to those provided by local authorities and others. The assessment of need is in the first instance a matter for local authorities and other bodies eligible for grant, in the light of local circumstances.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to increase the funding available for grants under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in the light of the proposed extension of the criteria for funding under the Act.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no such plans at present. Within existing cash limits, extension of the scope of section 11 beyond members of ethnic minorities of new Commonwealth origin would enable local authorities and other grant recipients to re-prioritise their requirements for section 11 grant if they saw a need to do so.

  Ex-prisoners
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were discharged from prison without permanent accommodation during the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information has not routinely been collected in the past, but consideration is now being given to arrangements for its regular collection in the future. A sample undertaken in the National Prison Survey 1991 then indicated that 9 per cent. of prisoners near their release date said they would become owner-occupiers on release, 40 per cent. said they would go into rented accommodation, 30 per cent. said they would live with their parents or other adult relations, 10 per cent. said they would live in a hostel or other temporary accommodation and 6 per cent. said they would have nowhere to live.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to take account of views of organisations representing victims of crime in the forthcoming White Paper reviewing the criminal injuries compensation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has already announced on 23 November 1992, col 457, the Government have decided that the present criminal injuries compensation scheme should be replaced by a tariff based scheme in 1994. The intention is to offer a quicker, more straightforward, service to claimants. Details of the new scheme will be set out in a White Paper in the summer. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the national charity, Victim Support, have already submitted papers on the matter; but their comments, and those which other interested organisations or individuals may wish to make, will also be welcome after the White Paper is published.

  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to combat a further rise in assaults on prison officers.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated June 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about measures to combat a further rise in assaults on prison officers.

  The increase in assaults on staff is of great concern to the Prison Service. Indeed, one of our key performance indicators is the number of assaults on staff and others. Initiatives to combat the increase include: the analysis of incidents to identify factors leading to assaults; the introduction of a new intelligence-handling system; the creation of smaller, more manageable living units by sub-dividing wings; and the development of skills in stress management and anger control.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers were assaulted in each of the last five years; and if he will give details of those assaults.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated June 1993:

  ASSAULTS ON PRISON OFFICERS

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to write to you directly in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of assaults on prison officers in each of the last five years.

  The available information is for the number of assaults, committed at Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, which were punished under the prison discipline system. Data are not available prior to April 1989 as assaults on prison officers, staff and others were grouped together in

  79
  a single category "Gross Personal Violence". Between April and December 1989, 1,260 assaults on prison officers were recorded. Comparable figures for 1990 and 1991 show 1,850 and 2,026 assaults respectively. Provisional figures for 1992 show 2,344 assaults against prison officers.

  Information for 1989, 1990 and 1991 was taken from the corresponding editions of "Statistics of Offences Against Prison Discipline and Punishments, England and Wales" (Cm 1236, 1651 and 2066, Tables 10, 12 and 14 of 1989 edition and Tables 9, 10 and 11 of the 1990 and 1991 editions) copies of which are held in the Library. These show the establishments at which the assaults took place. No other details of the assaults are recorded centrally.

  Drugs
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures police forces are taking in conjunction with local education authorities to warn pupils of the dangers of drug taking.

  Mr. Maclean
  All police forces in England and Wales have police/schools liaison programmes formed in partnership with local education authorities, where police officers visit school pupils with the aim of fostering young people's awareness of their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Discussion about the dangers of drugs is a common topic with older pupils.

  The police are also involved with many drugs prevention schemes initiated by other agencies, particularly those supported by the Home Office drugs prevention initiative teams. Examples of the police contribution there include: anti-drugs poster campaigns, the distribution of a free "phone card" with the numbers of drugs helpline services, and co-operation with the entertainment industry to prevent drug misuse at rave venues.

  Firearms
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of shotguns and the number of other firearms licensed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Estimates of the number of shotguns and of other firearms licensed can be found in paragraphs 4 and 9 of Home Office statistical bulletin "Firearms Certificates Statistics, England and Wales 1991". Copies of this publication can be found in the Library.

  Police: Public Ratio
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the proportion of police to public in the north-west region; and what is the comparative figure for the rest of England and Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the north-west inspectorial region, which consists of the Cumbria, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside and North Wales police forces, there is an average of one officer to 386 people. The comparable figure for the rest of England and Wales is 1:404.

  Sheehy Report
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he expects the Sheehy report to be published.
  80
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to extend the timetable for publication of the report to the end of June 1993.

  Victim Support
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has given to the report from the organisation Victim Support on aid for victims, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Maclean
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) wrote to Victim Support on 31 March in response to its paper "Band Aid for Victims?", commenting on a number of the specific points which it had raised and promising that its views would be borne in mind as we prepared the White Paper which will set out our more detailed plans for the new tariff scheme to replace the present criminal injuries compensation scheme next year. The intention is to publish the White Paper in the summer.

  Prison Contracts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison service governors and Home Office civil servants have switched to private companies involved in bids for prison contracts in the last three years; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not possible to give precise information about the numbers of former Prison Service governors and Home Office civil servants who may have taken up employment with private companies involved in bids for prison contracts in the last three years, since staff below grade 3 who wish to take up outside employment are required to seek approval to do so for a period of only two years after leaving Crown employment and in certain specified circumstances. Six former members of the Home Office have sought and obtained approval under these procedures to take up employment with private companies which have been involved in bids for prison contracts. All were governor grades; three were governing establishments; one was a head of custody in an establishment; one was in the inspectorate of prisons; and one in the remands contracts unit. In addition, a former police superintendent on secondment to the remands contracts unit was given approval to take up employment with such a company.

  Devon and Cornwall Police
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed by the Devon and Cornwall police authority as at 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At the end of December 1992 there were 2,920 police officers in the Devon and Cornwall constabulary.

  Security Firms
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to require security firms to notify his Department of(a) directors and (b) employees who are convicted criminals.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so. The Government's policy is to encourage the self-regulation of the security industry.

  Crime Support Organisations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those organisations funded by him which give support and assistance to(a) victims of crime and (b) their families; and in each case state what funding from Government they have received in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office pays grant to the national charity Victim Support and helps to fund the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Scottish Office separately funds Victim Support Scotland and contributes to Government funding of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Victim Support provides emotional help and practical support to victims of crime and their families through a network of some 400 local schemes and branches. CICB awards compensation to victims of crime and, where the victim has died as a result of criminal injury, to dependants of the victim.

  Home Office funding in the last three financial years was as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Victim Support

  4·7

  5·7

  7·3

  CICB1

  119·6

  156·7

  166·7

  1Includes the contribution from the Scottish Office.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  CSCE
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made to date in(a) the conflict prevention centre and consultative committee, (b) the office for democratic institutions and human rights, (c) the commission on national minorities, (d) the forum for security co-operation, (e) the Vienna group and (f) the parliamentary assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 1990 Paris charter set up the conflict prevention centre and consultative committee, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the parliamentary assembly, as part of the CSCE's efforts to promote security, democracy and respect for human rights in Europe. These institutions are adapting well to the new demands placed on them and are supported now by the Forum for Security Co-operation and the High Commissioner on National Minorities agreed at Helsinki in July 1992. The Council of Ministers at Stockholm in December 1992 provided for more effective decision making in the CSCE by establishing the Vienna group of the committee of senior officials. It also appointed a Secretary General and laid the foundation for a single organisational structure for the CSCE in Vienna. The institutions are lightly staffed but are contributing to the CSCE's varied activities notably in the resolution of disputes and preventive diplomacy.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total expenditure by his Department over the past 10 years on items connected with members of the royal family; and what is the itemised breakdown of such expenditure.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The cost to the Department of royal visits overseas at the request of Government Departments during the last 10 years was £4,241,700, broken down as follows:

  £

  1983–84

  409,800

  1984–85

  316,100

  1985–86

  388,200

  1986–87

  382,500

  1987–88

  386,600

  1988–89

  396,400

  1989–90

  424,000

  1990–91

  464,000

  1991–92

  620,800

  11992–93

  453,300

  1 Bills presented to date.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the practice of his Department regarding financial assistance for members of the royal family to purchase items of clothing for overseas visits.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Department provides financial assistance to members of the royal family to cover expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of official duties overseas; this includes a contribution to clothing expenses.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 350, which visits and of what duration were made at Government Department's request during the financial year 1992–93 by (a) the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, (b) the Prince and Princess of Wales and (c) other memnbers of the royal family; and who made each of the visits by other members of the royal family.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Overseas visits were made by the following members of the royal family at Government Department's request during the financial year 1992–93:

  (a) The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh:

  12 May—France

  27–31 May—Malta

  13–14 July—USA

  9–12 June—France

  19–23 October—Germany

  11–20 March—Dominica, Montserrat, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands

  (b) The Prince and the Princess of Wales:

  10–15 May—Egypt

  2–5 November—Korea

  5–7 November—Hong Kong

  13–15 November—France

  17–19 November—France

  12–14 February—USA

  14–18 February—Mexico

  2–6 March—Nepal

  (c) Other members of the Royal Family:

  Prince Edward:

  2–18 October—British Indian Ocean Territory, Brunei, Western Samoa

  83
  The Princess Royal:

  11–19 May—Finland, Sweden, Norway

  10–15 Septembe—India

  Princess Margaret:

  23–25 June—Netherlands

  Duke and Duchess of Gloucester:

  12–13 October—Belgium

  Duke of Kent:

  14–23 May—Japan

  30 June-1 July—Italy

  9–10 November—Germany

  Princess Alexandra:

  22–25 April—USA

  30 October-7 November—Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada

  Overseas Visits (Clothing)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list by name and status all individuals who have received financial assistance from his Department over the past 10 years to purchase items of clothing for overseas visits; and what was the amount of each of such payments.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In the diplomatic wing, the payments derive from an officer's entitlement to a climatic clothing allowance when he or she is posted to a country where the climate is different from that in the United Kingdom. The allowance for a single officer is £468, with an additional £42 for "cold" countries, irrespective of the officer's grade. The figures for married officers are £712 and £309. Officers posted in the United Kingdom who go to such countries on an official visit may receive an accountable advance of this allowance. The rates are for visits of two months or less £187 plus "cold" supplement of £17; and for visits of more than two months £280 plus "cold" supplement of £26. In the aid wing, permanent staff making short visits are entitled to £295 in a three-year period, and contract officers up to £220. For travel over 16 weeks or for an overseas posting, there is an additional entitlement to £215 for single and £310 for married officers. Details of individual advances over the past 10 years are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate effort and cost.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government will now undertake to the United Nations in relation to repeated violations of United Nations resolutions by the Iraqi Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraq continues flagrantly to defy the United Nation's authority across the board, including the mandatory requirements of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687, which established the ceasefire and UNSCR 688, which condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq.

  We raise Iraqi violations of UNSCRS at the United Nations on every suitable occasion. At the 13th review of economic sanctions by the Security Council on 24 May, the United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Sir David Hannay, listed areas of Iraq's non-compliance with the relevant UNSCRs. The Security
  84
  Council concluded once more that there were no grounds for the lifting or the easing of sanctions against Iraq. We will continue to insist that sanctions should not be lifted until Iraq complies fully with all the relevant UNSCRs.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take in the UN Security Council following the attack by Iranian fighter jets on the territory of Iraq on 25 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have expressed our serious concern to the Iranian authorities at Iran's air-raids inside Iraq. The UN Security Council is permanently seized of this issue as part of the process of implementing Security Council Resolution 598 which laid down the terms of the ceasefire at the end of the Iran/Iraq war in 1988.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the buildings currently owned or rented by his Department and the Overseas Development Administration, together with(a) the estimated value, (b) the annual rent and (c) the annual maintenance cost of each building in the current financial year.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested in respect of individual buildings is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Provisions contained within the FCO Supply Estimate for 1993–94 are as follows:

  Rentals £ million

  Maintenance £ million

  FCO

  Home

  (a) 35·9

  (b) 7·3

  Overseas

  47·5

  19·9

  ODA

  Home

  9·3

  1·4

  Overseas

  Apart from one building all ODA accommodation included in Diplomatic Wing baseline

  Notes:

  (a) Paid to Property Holdings for occupation of buildings on both common user and departmental estates.

  (b) Includes the works charge paid to Property Holdings for its maintenance responsibilities for the common user estate.

  Iran
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government will take following the air raid on 25 May by Iranian jets against two bases in Iraq of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have expressed our serious concern to the Iranian authorities at the air raids carried out by Iran inside Iraq, as we have also done on previous similar occasions.

  Kashmir
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he intends to raise the issue of human rights violations in Kashmir during the course of the forthcoming Commonwealth conference; and if he will make a statement.
  85
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The agenda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference to be held in Cyprus in October is still under discussion. We have frequently raised the issue of human rights in Kashmir with the Indian Government and will continue to use appropriate opportunities to do so.

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The diplomatic wing plans to relocate a small number of posts in 1993 and 1994. Otherwise, there are no plans to relocate or amalgamate sections and organisations of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for exemption under section 12(2) of the Immigration Control Ordinance (Gibraltar) the Governor of Gibraltar has received for each year since 1988; how many of these have been received from(a) EC nationals, (b) Moroccan and (c) Indian nationals over the same period; and how many applications have been rejected by nationality.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A total of 102 applications were received for exemption under section 12(2) of Gibraltar's Immigration Control Ordinance since 1988 to date broken down by year and nationality of applicant as follows:

  Year

  Total

  EC

  Moroccan

  Indian

  Others

  1988

  23

  12

  8

  2

  1

  1989

  24

  13

  7

  1

  3

  1990

  16

  8

  7

  1

  0

  1991

  13

  5

  6

  2

  0

  1992

  25

  5

  10

  3

  7

  1993

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  The total number of refusals was 48 broken down by nationality of applicant as follows:

  Number

  EC nationals

  12

  Moroccan nationals

  28

  Indian nationals

  5

  Others

  3

  Mr. Christopher Ian Scott
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action was taken by Her Majesty's Government to arrange for the extradition of Mr. Christopher Ian Scott from Spain between March 1992 and December 1992 on the basis of the warrant for his extradition issue by West Midlands police on 8 March 1990.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Madrid has remained in touch with the Spanish Government about Mr. Scott's extradition to the United Kingdom. The case is complicated by a charge in Spain outstanding against
  86
  Mr. Scott for which he remains remanded in custody there. His extradition to the United Kingdom will take place only once the outstanding charge has been resolved, in accordance with article 19 of the European convention on extradition.

  Non-proliferation Treaty Conference
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library texts of all the submissions made by representatives of Her Majesty's Government to, and all of the official documents of, the 1995 NPT conference preparatory committee meeting held in New York in May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A copy of the statement delivered by the head of the United Kingdom delegation and copies of the official documents tabled at the preparatory committee meeting have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Greek Government regarding the number of settlers from mainland Greece who have emigrated to southern Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Questions of settlement and property rights for both communities in Cyprus are intrinsic to the United Nations "Set of Ideas", endorsed by the Security Council as the basis of a settlement. We have urged acceptance of the "Set of Ideas" on both sides, including when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Cypriot Foreign Minister Mr. Michaelides on 12 May.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many non-Cypriots have been permitted by the Greek-Cypriot authorities to settle in southern Cyprus since 1963; and what is the estimated total population of southern Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  According to figures given by the Republic of Cyprus, the population of the area in question was estimated at 575,000, of whom 10,529 were resident aliens. We have no figures for immigration since 1963.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Greek-Cypriot authorities regarding Turkish-Cypriot men, women and children who went missing in 1963, 1967 and 1974.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We support the efforts of the United Nations intercommunal committee on missing persons; but its efforts depend on full co-operation from both sides.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make an official visit to Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Our aim is to give effective support to the continuing inter-communal negotiations on Cyprus under United Nations auspices. This year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has continued to have frequent
  87
  meetings with Cypriot Ministers, and other parties to the dispute, in London and elsewhere. The timing of any possible visit to Cyprus must be carefully considered in that light.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Greek and Greek-Cypriot troops he estimates are under arms in Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  According to official figures of the Republic of Cyprus, the strength of the Greek Cypriot national guard is 10,000. In addition there is a regiment of 950 men of the Greek Army, plus 1,100 secondees from the Greek army to the Greek Cypriot national guard.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people are estimated to have been killed in Cyprus in connection with the political situation(a) between independence and 1974 and (b) 1975 and the present date.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No definitive figures are available.

  The United Nations committee on missing persons is attempting to trace and account for those reported missing in the earlier period.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Greek Cypriot regime regarding Turkish-Cypriot homes and farms occupied by Greek-Cypriots in southern Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Questions of settlement and property rights for both communities in Cyprus are intrinsic to the United Nations "Set of Ideas", endorsed by the Security Council as the basis of a settlement. We have urged acceptance of the "Set of Ideas" on both sides, including when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Cypriot Foreign Minister Mr. Michaelides on 12 May.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British tourists visited the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following are our estimated figures for British tourists visiting the north of Cyprus in the last three years:

  Number

  1990

  40,000

  1991

  30,000

  1992

  40,000

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of his time the British High Commissioner in Cyprus spends in the north of the island.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We do not recognise the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" or its "government". As a consequence, the High Commissioner himself spends considerably less of his time in the north of the island. However, we take care to keep in close touch with the Turkish Cypriot community at all levels, including through him; and members of his staff have regular and frequent dealings with the Turkish Cypriots.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of the People's Republic of China on the deaths of Bishop Liu Difen and Liu Mangping.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are disturbed about reports of the deaths of the two bishops mentioned and are seeking to establish the facts. We regularly raise human rights, including the persecution of religious believers, with the Chinese authorities.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Hong Kong; and if he Will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I visited Hong Kong from 29 May to 1 June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to visit Hong Kong.

  Blackpool Football Club
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Spanish Government about the arrest and detention in Majorca of Trevor Sinclair of Blackpool football club; whether he will protest to the Spanish Government about the mistreatment by the Majorcan police of other members of the Blackpool team; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Sinclair was arrested on 18 May for damaging property. After his release the next day he made no complaint to Her Majesty's consul about his treatment by the Spanish authorities. We received no complaints from other members of the Blackpool football team. If they have any to make I shall be glad to look into the matter.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current United Nations policies to combat drug abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations with primary responsibility for action against drugs is the United Nations international drug control programme (UNDCP). Since its formation in 1991, the UNDCP has developed a wide range of programmes to deal with all aspects of drugs including cultivation, processing, trafficking and consumption. The United Kingdom is one of the major donors. It is too soon to make a firm assessment of UNDCP. But the programme is expanding its activities steadily and establishing itself as the co-ordinating agency with the United Nations system.

  Bosnia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure the closure of all roads leading into Bosnia from the former Yugoslavia.
  89
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  President Milosevic's undertaking to close the border between Serbia/Montenegro and Bosnia to all non-humanitarian supplies has resulted in a significant reduction of cross-border traffic, but some movement of goods continues. Talks are taking place in the United Nations on a draft Security Council resolution to deploy international border monitors. President Milosevic at present refuses to accept the presence of such monitors. The international community is intensifying pressure on him to change this position.

  Tibet
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the People's Republic of China about events in Tibet; and what response he has received.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are deeply concerned by the recent reports of arrests and disturbances in Tibet. EC ambassadors, who visited Tibet on 17–23 May, raised the reported arrests with the authorities there and urged that those detained be released. On 1 June the presidency issued, on behalf of the Community and member states, a public statement reiterating concern about the recent events and the general human rights situation in Tibet and calling for dialogue without preconditions between the Chinese authorities and the representatives of the Tibetans including the Dalai Lama.

  Middle East
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the Palestine/Israeli dispute.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The ninth round of bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Arab parties took place in Washington from 27 April to 13 May. There are welcome indications that all parties engaged in serious discussion of substantive matters. We hope that talks will resume soon and build on what has been achieved.

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following meetings are planned:

  1 June:—Employment and Social Affairs

  1–2 June:—Trevi Meeting/Meetings of Ministers for Immigration

  7 June:—ECOFIN

  7–8 June:—Transport

  8 June:—Foreign Affairs Council

  11 June:—Education

  14 June:—Internal Market

  15 June:—Agriculture

  16 June:—Telecommunications

  24–26 June:—Fisheries

  25–26 June:—Energy

  28–29 June:—Environment

  30 June:—Research

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:—
  (a) Employment and Social Affairs—1 June

  Proposal for a directive on fishing vessels (5680/93)

  90

  Proposal for a recommendation on access to continuing vocational training (6671/93)

  Proposal for a directive on European works council (4466/91); 8319/91)

  Proposal for a directive on the organisation of working time (8145/92; 4384/93)

  Proposal for a directive on the protection of young people at work (4690/93; 6346/93)

  (b) Trevi Meeting/Meetings of Ministers for Immigration, 1–2 June
  Report to European Council on free movement of people Various immigration and asylum matters
  'Europol'
  (c) ECOFIN—7 June (Provisional)

  Approval of the provisional agenda (Possibly) Approval of the list of 'A' items

  Economic recovery and convergence programmes

  Proposal for a Council Directive on deposit guarantee schemes (0) (Legal Basis: EEC Treaty—Article 57)

  Inter-institutional Agreement on Budgetary Discipline

  Fraud against the Community budget

  Commission's report on the Fight against Fraud in 1992

  Relations with Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union

  euratom loans

  Community guarantee to the EIB against losses under loans for projects in Albania (0)

  (legal basis: EEC Treaty—Article 235)

  CO2/energy tax

  7th VAT Directive

  Withholding tax on interest and royalties (0)

  (Legal basis: EEC Treaty—Article 100)

  (d) Transport—7–8 June

  Transport Infrastructure Regulation (8065/92 Trans 99, 10437/92 Trans 163)

  White Paper on Common Transport Policy (11011/92 Trans 181 MAR 77 AER 80)

  Aviation External Relations (5080/90 AER 16, 4146/93 AER 1)

  (Aviation) Computerised Reservations Systems (4236/93 AER 3)

  Relations with Switzerland (Commission Report)

  Trans-European Networks: (A) Combined Transport

  Network; 8066/92 Trans 100, Annex 2, (B) Road

  Network: 8065/92 Trans 99, Part IV (C) Inland

  Waterways Network: 8065/92 Trans 99, Part V

  Land Transport: (A) Road Transport Taxation; 4227/88

  Trans 10 Fisc 9, 4714/92 Fisc 17 Trans 21, 9656/92 Fisc

  171 Trans 138, (B) Road Haulage Cabotage; 10083/91

  Trans 197, 7662/92 Trans 95, 10881/92 Trans 180, (C)

  Transport from and towards Greece

  Maritime Transport: (A) Maritime Safety; 5038/93 Mar 16 Env 57, 4390/93 PV/Cons 3 Trans 5 Env 25, (B) (Poss) Presentation of Commission proposals: (I) Classification societies; (II) Minimum level of education for the maritime professions.

  Any Other Business

  Road Safety (presentation of the Commission Communication)

  Technical Harmonisation of Community Railways (Commission Statement)

  Promotion of Combined Transport (Commission Statement)

  Application of Rules of Competition to Maritime Transport (Statement by the German delegation)

  Application of Regulation (EEC) No. 4055/86 (Statement by the United Kingdom delegation)

  State Aid for Civil Aviation (Contribution by the Commission)

  (e) Foreign Affairs Council—8 June

  Relations with the European Parliament:

  Preparation of proposed Inter-institutional meeting Access to information:

  Second Commission Communication

  Structural Funds

  91

  Enlargement negotiations:

  Preparation for four ministerial meetings

  Relations with Central and Eastern Europe

  Relations with Russia

  Ex-Yugoslavia

  Trade policy questions

  EC/Korea relations:

  Commission Communication

  Preparation of European Council, 21–22 June

  (f) Education—11 June

  Educational initiatives in Favour of Involving All Young People in Working and Social Life

  Guidelines for Community Action in the Field of Education and Training

  Furthering an Open European Space in Higher Education

  Draft Resolution of the Council on Vocational Education and Training in the 1990s

  Long-term possibilities for reform of the European Schools

  Responses to the HE and Vocational Training Memoranda

  Working Group on HE Quality Assessment

  Development of Pilot EC/US co-operation in HE

  Proposed European Week for Scientific Culture

  (g) Internal Market Council—14 June
  Agenda unavailable
  (h) Agriculture—14–15 June

  (Poss) Price fixing (Corn 93/36)

  (Poss) Milk quotas—SLOM 111

  (Poss) Potatoes (10483/92; 6736/93)

  (Poss) Sugar (4632/93; 6403/93)

  (Poss) Non-Rotational set-aside (6744/93; 6745/93)

  (Poss) Cereal Standard Quality (5404/93; 6546/93)

  (Poss) Spain, Greece, Italy Milk Quotas (5404/93; 6546/93)

  GATT—Agricultural (5813/93; 6612/93)

  (Poss) Plant breeders rights

  (Poss) Minced Meat

  (i) Telecommunications—16 June

  HDTV (COM(92) 154 FINAL)

  Telecommunications liberalization (COM(93) 159 FINAL)

  Postal Services Green Paper (COM(91) 476 FINAL)

  Satellite Earth Station Equipment Directive (COM(29) 451 FINAL)

  (j) Fisheries—5 June

  Control system for the Commons Fisheries Policy (9019/92)

  EC Fisheries Agreement with Argentina

  Spanish/Portuguese Accession (4158/93)

  Harmonised technical conversation measures in the Mediterranean (11229/92)

  EC negotiating mandate with the Russian Federation

  (k) Energy—25 June

  Save energy efficiency directive (Adoption) (7847/92)

  Altemer new and renewables programme (Adoption) (7757/92)

  Directives on the liberalisation of Electricity and Gas (Debate) (4911/92)

  Hydrocarbons licensing directive (6566/92, 4180/93) Nuclear safety and energy supply in Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union (Council Conclusions)

  Coal state aid (Discussion) (4669/93)

  Energy Charter (Discussion)

  (l) Environment—28–29 June

  Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive—5761/92

  Volatile Organic Compounds (Stage 1) Directive—5348/92

  Directive on CO2 Emissions from Cars

  CITES Regulation—10500/91

  Carbon/Energy Tax—7018/92

  Emissions from Motor Vehicles Directive—4437/93

  Ratification of the Biodiversity Convention—4593/93

  92

  Revisions to the Birds Directive—5185/91

  (m) Research—30 June

  Fourth RND Framework Programme (Inc Management) (Poss) Technology Initiative for Disable and Elderly People

  (Poss) EC Statistics

  A formal meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council is planned for Tuesday 1 June. The agenda has not yet been finalised, but the directives on working time, fishing vessels, Protection of Young Workers and European Works Councils are likely to be discussed. Further possible agenda items include the recommendation on access to training and the resolution on flexible retirement. There may also be a discussion of a Commission initiative on employment.
  The Trevi Meeting/Meetings of Ministers for Immigration will take place on 1–2 June and will discuss the report to the European Council on free movement of people. Ministers will also discuss various immigration and asylum matters as well as "EUROPOL".
  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 7 June to discuss action to promote economic recovery in Europe consistent with the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council. Discussion will also take place on the United Kingdom convergence programme; the inter-institutional agreement on budget discipline; matters relating to Community action to combat fraud against the Community Budget; and carbon/energy tax. The Council may consider the directive concerning the Commission's proposals for an EC cross-boarder interest and royalty payments; Euratom loans for nuclear power stations in the former Soviet union; EIB lending to Albania; and the proposal for a council directive on deposit guarantee schemes. The proposal to amend the 7th VAT Directive (Special VAT regime for second-hand goods, works of art, antique and collectors' items) may be discussed at this meeitng.
  The Transport Council on 7/8 June will discuss a full and wide ranging agenda. Ministers will be keen to reach agreement on the Transport Infrastructure Regulation after the European Parliament invoked the "conciliation procedure". They will also wish to make further progress on the complex negotiations on Road Haulage Cabotage and Road Transport Taxation.
  Other issues will include: 'aviation external relations'; 'computer reservation systems'; the 'white paper on common transport policy'; 'relations with Switzerland'; 'Trans-European Networks—Combined Transport/Road/Inland waterways'; 'transport to and from Greece—prompted by the troubles in the former Yugoslavia'; and 'maritime safety'.
  In addition they may discuss the Commission proposals on 'classification societies' and 'minimum levels of education for the maritime professions'.
  Under other business the Commission will be presenting statements on: 'road safety'; 'technical harmonisation of Community railways'; the 'promotion of combined transport'; and 'state aid for civil aviation'. Finally the German delegation will be making a statement on the 'application of competition to maritime transport' and the UK delegation on the 'application of Regulation 4055/86."
  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 8 June and will discuss Relations with the European Parliament, Preparation of the proposed Inter-Institutional meeting and Second Commission Communication on access to Information. Ministers will also discuss Structural Funds and Enlargement Negotiations; Preparation for four Ministerial meetings. Relations with Central and Eastern Europe, Relations with Russia and the Ex-Yugoslavia will also be discussed. Trade Policy Questions, EC/Korea Relations: Commission Communication and Preparation of European Council on 21–22 June are also scheduled for discussion.
  The Education Council will be meeting on 11 June. Ministers will discuss Educational Initiatives involving young people in working and social life, guidelines for Community action in the field of education and training and about furthering an open European Space in Higher Education. Also down for discussion are the Draft Resolution of the Council on Vocational Education and Training in the 1990's, the long term possibilities for reform of the European Schools and responses to the HE and Vocational Training Memoranda. Finally Ministers will also discuss the Working

  93
  Group on HE Quality Assessment, Development of Pilot EC/US cooperation in HE and the proposed European Week for Scientific Culture.
  The Internal Market Council will meet on 14 June. No Agenda has yet been set for this meeting.
  The Agriculture Council will meet on 14–15 June. Ministers will discuss the agricultural aspects of the GATT negotiations. They may also discuss the 1993–94 price-fixing proposals; milk quotas (SLOM III); Review of the potato regime; sugar; set-aside; Spanish, Italian and Greek milk quotas; plant breeders' rights and minced meat.
  The Telecommunications Council will meet on 16 June to discuss HDTV, Telecommunications Liberalisation, Postal Services Green Paper and the Satellite Earth Station Equipment Directive.
  The Fisheries Council will meet on 24 June. Ministers may discuss the proposed control and enforcement regulation; EC Fisheries Agreement with Argentina; review of the accession arrangements applicable to Spain and Portugal; proposed harmonised technical conservation measures in the Mediterranean and the possible Commission negotiating mandate with the Russian Federation.
  The Energy Council will meet on 25 June. Ministers will discuss the harmonisation of hydrocarbons licensing regimes, liberalisation of natural gas and electricity markets, coal state aids, nuclear safety and energy supply in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, and the European Energy Charter. Ministers are expected to adopt the SAVE directive on energy efficiency and the Altener decision on new and renewable energy sources.
  The Environment Council will meet on 28–29 June. The Council may reach agreement on the directives on hazardous waste incineration, volatile organic compounds (Stage 1), emissions from motor vehicles and the decision on ratification of the Biodiversity Convention. Progress reports may be presented on revisions to the CITES Regulation, follow up to UNCED and proposals for a Carbon/Energy Tax. Discussions may also cover revisions to the Birds Directive, CO2 emissions from cars and, possibly, implementation of the Montreal Protocol as regards sCFCs and methyl bromide.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full-time in work relating to market-testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The consultancy costs and the direct staff costs of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic ing's market-testing programme up to 31 March 1993 totalled £260,000. The cost for the aid wing was £290,000. In neither case is it possible to estimate the future cost.

  Since November 1991, market testing has accounted for a significant proportion of the time of some 35 diplomatic wing, and 14 aid wing staff. The diplomatic wing has employed Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte and Capita Management Consultants on work relating to market testing. The aid wing has employed Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, KPMG and CSL (Group) Ltd. In all cases, the consutants were originally selected by competitive tender.

  Drug Imports
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the involvement of his Department in the effort to reduce illegal imports of drugs.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  One of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's objectives is the promotion of 94
  effective international co-operation against drugs, particu-larly in the context of the 1988 United Nations drugs convention. The FCO department concerned plays an active part in international meetings on drugs, and is engaged in a range of activity to develop bilateral co-operation to reduce drug production and trafficking.

  China
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We share with China the joint objective of maintaining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. We are also seeking to improve relations across a broad front. As fellow members of the Security Council, we maintain a dialogue on international issues. We would like by increasing our trade to participate in the rapid growth of the Chinese economy. We regularly raise a number of other matters including human rights and Tibet with the Chinese Government.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) of 15 February,Official Report, column 33, if he will place in the Library copies of correspondence arising from the letter from the British embassy in Washington to Senators Hatfield, Exon and Mitchell in August 1992.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The British embassy in Washington received one letter from Senator Hatfield in reply to the letter sent to Senators Hatfield, Exon and Mitchell in August 1992. A decision to make this reply public would have to be for the sender of the letter.

  Belize
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes in respect of policy towards Belize following recent developments in Guatemala; and if he will make a statement on policy towards Guatemala.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Our policy towards Belize remains unchanged. As regards the British garrison in Belize, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 13 May at column 561. We are following closely current developments in Guatemala. As we and our European partners made clear in an EC statement on 27 May, we view the current situation in Guatemala with concern, and call for an early return to the democratic process.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Belize to discuss recent political changes in neighbouring Guatemala with the Prime Minister of Belize.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs nor I have any plans to visit Belize at present. Our High Commissioner in Belmopan is, of course, in close touch with the Belize authorities, and we look forward to seeing the Belizean Prime Minister in London shortly.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the ambassador of Guatemala to discuss recent developments in his country.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs nor I have any plans to meet the Guatemalan ambassador.

  EI Salvador
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with EI Salvador in the light of recent developments in that country.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: We maintain good relations with EI Salvador. We continue to work with our EC partners and the United Nations to help bring the peace process there to a full and successful conclusion.

EMPLOYMENT

  EC Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Social Affairs Council held on 1 June.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I attended the meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 1 June in Luxembourg.

  A number of important issues were discussed. The main debate related to the draft working time directive on which the Council reached political agreement on a common position. We made clear the United Kingdom Government's continued objections to the directive, and our intention to challenge the legal base of the directive, when it is adopted, before the European Court of Justice, on the grounds that it represents a misuse of the health and safety provisions introduced by the Single European Act. In consequence, my right hon. Friend registered his intention to abstain on the directive.

  Three major concessions were secured which would allow the United Kingdom to maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for employers and employees, namely:
  —the right for individual workers to work more than 48 hours a week if they wish;
  —that Sunday working should remain a matter for national law;
  —provision to allow company and plant agreements to derogate from the main provisions of the directive.

  Exemptions from the scope of the directive were made for work at sea and doctors in training, to add to those previously agreed.

  There was further discussion of both the young workers directive and the European works councils directive. No significant progress was made. The United Kingdom reiterated its major objections to both measures on grounds of subsidiarity and substance, reflecting, in the case of the young workers directive, the views expressed by the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses.

  A Commission paper on employment, following up the earlier resolution adopted under the United Kingdom presidency, was discussed. We stressed the importance of protecting the international competitiveness of EC
  96
  businesses if we were to be able to tackle the high and rising levels of unemployment in the Community, and the threat to jobs posed by high non-wage costs and over-regulation. The Council agreed to conclusions stressing the need to tackle the problem of severe unemployment and to seek solutions to it, welcoming the Commission's initiative and pledging its commitment to intensifying efforts in this field.

  Other substantive agenda items were settled as follows:
  A Recommendation on Access to Training secured political agreement, with the United Kingdom's outstanding concerns met;
  A Directive on Safety on Fishing Vessels secured political agreement on a common position. The United Kingdom indicated its intention to abstain;
  A Resolution on Flexible Retirement was agreed.

  Unemployed
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were registered as unemployed in the London borough of Greenwich at the last count; and what was the figure three years ago.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to the reply, 25 May 1993]: I apologise for the fact that the figure quoted in the original reply related to the parliamentary constituency of Greenwich rather than the London borough of Greenwich. The correct reply follows.

  Unadjusted claimant unemployment in the London borough of Greenwich stood at 16,643 in April 1993, and 8,214 in April 1990.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed(a) men and (b) women in each of the London boroughs on 20 May.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The claimant unemployment figures relating to April 8, which were released on 20 May, can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment for the Barnsley, East constituency on the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In April 1993, on the unadjusted basis, there were 3,892 claimant unemployed people in the Barnsley, East constituency.

  Sex Discrimination
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claims were made to tribunals under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 for each year since 1979; how many separate employers were involved; how many of those claims were successful; and what was the average amount of compensation awarded in each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The details where available are as follows:

  Year

  Applications under Sex Discrimination Act 1975

  Successful applications

  Median award compensation £

  1979

  277

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  486

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  296

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  406

  n/a

  n/a

  97

  Year

  Applications under Sex Discrimination Act 1975

  Successful applications

  Median award compensation £

  1983

  353

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  376

  n/a

  n/a

  1985–86

  430

  39

  399

  1986–87

  612

  48

  625

  1987–88

  679

  46

  792

  1988–89

  903

  78

  499

  1989–90

  1,029

  86

  1,094

  1990–91

  1,936

  78

  1,142

  1991–92

  2,684

  190

  11,725

  1992–93

  4,816

  n/a

  n/a

  1 provisional

  (The information is in financial years for the years after 1983.)

  I regret that details of the number of separate employers are not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the current level of job vacancies in England and Wales.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On the seasonally adjusted basis unfilled jobcent re vacancies in April 1993 stood at 92,600 in England and 9,300 in Wales, increases of 8·4 per cent. and 4·5 per cent respectively on April a year ago.

  Jobcentre vacancies do not represent the total number of vacancies available in the economy.

  Earnings
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the average weekly earnings of full-time(a) male and (b) female workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is published in part A of the 1992 New Earnings Survey, table 1.1. A copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the average hourly earnings of part-time(a) male and (b) female workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is published in part A of the New Earnings Survey, table 20.2. A copy is available in the Library.

  Job Seekers
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to her answer of 25 May,Official Report, column 520, if she will list the figures for the total number of people seeking work for each quarter since 1985.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available quarterly figures for Great Britain have been published in table 1 of the Labour Force Survey Historical Supplement, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she will next meet representatives of British chambers of commerce to discuss skill Shortages.
  98
  Miss Widdecombe
  At present neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have current plans to meet the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. The Department regularly monitors skill shortages which currently are at a low level.

  Training
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of young people entering employment for the first time receive training from their employers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Youth Cohort Study of England and Wales showed that in the spring of 1992 66 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds and 83 per cent. of 17 and 18-year-olds in full-time employment received either on or off-the-job training from employers.

  Workplace Accidents
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional measures she is considering to reduce accidents at the place of work; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for maintaining and improving health and safety standards rests with employers and others concerned at the workplace. The Health and Safety Commission's priorities for promoting improvements in health and safety at work are set out in their plan of work for 1993–94 and beyond, which is expected to be published within the next few weeks.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the buildings currently owned or rented by her Department, together with(a) the estimated value, (b) the annual rent and (c) the annual maintenance cost of each building in the current financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are nearly 2,000 buildings in the Employment Department Group estate. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people have been waiting for eight weeks or more for a place on a youth training scheme in the Barnsley, East constituency; and what steps he is taking to ensure that a place is provided for them.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The records held by Barnsley Careers Service show that in April only six young people had been waiting for a youth training place for over eight weeks. Barnsley/ Doncaster training and enterprise council is continuing to ensure that the Government's guarantee to young people is met and is pursuing individual cases.

  Learning for Work
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether participants in the new learning for work scheme who are removed from the claimant count,
  99
  remain passported for housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support and free school meals and health benefits if applicable; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Yes.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what has been the cost of statutory redundancy payments in each year since 1987–88; and how many workers have received payments by region;

  (2) what has been the cost of statutory redundancy payments in each year since 1987–88; and how many workers have received payments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Primary responsibility for the payment of statutory redundancy payments lies with employers. Information is not available on the number or cost of payments made by employers.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may make payment from the national insurance fund to employees whose employer becomes insolvent or is otherwise unable to pay. The number and cost of such payments for each available year is as follows:

  Number (thousands)

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1987–88

  30

  34·9

  1988–89

  25

  32·4

  1989–90

  20

  25·7

  1990–91

  42

  67·6

  1991–92

  96

  131·8

  Information is not available by region.

  New Horizons for Women
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost of his predecessor's New Horizons for Women campaign.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Expenditure on the "New Horizons for Women" campaign in 1992–93 was £176,000. The budget for 1993–94 is £300,000, of which £79,000 has been paid so far.

  Service Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current definition of service industry used by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Service industry covers the following divisions of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980:

  Division 6: distribution, hotels and catering,

  Division 7: transport and communication,

  Division 8: banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing,

  Division 9: other services.

  Maternity Leave
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what account was taken of the Government's obligations under the Innocenti declaration on breastfeeding in drawing up the Government's policy on the length of maternity leave in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
  100
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government considered all relevant factors in bringing forward the Bill's provisions, which will greatly enhance the statutory maternity rights of pregnant employees, regardless of their length of service or hours of work.

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Care Housing
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has conducted into the housing needs of older people; and if he will commission research on overall assessment of community care housing needs at a national level.

  Sir George Young
  The Department has commissioned Ernst and Young management consultants to carry out an independent study of the housing needs of elderly and disabled people. The study has been completed and a series of reports covering different elements of the programme of research are being prepared, slightly later than was originally expected. Due to the amount of data collected and the complexity of the analysis, it is now proposed to publish a single report later this year which summarises the findings from the individual reports, which will then be made available on request.

  The study undertaken by Ernst and Young was an assessment of the overall housing needs of eldely people and did not look separately at needs arising from community care policies. The Government are, nevertheless, keeping a close watch on the way in which community care is being implemented and will consider the need for detailed research at an appropriate time.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from foreign Governments and parliamentarians concerning the environmental implications of opening the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Irish Government have formally responded to the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's public consultation on the proposed draft authorisations for the Sellafield site including THORP. There have also been representations from Scandinavian parliamentarians.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been received since November 1992 by Her Majesty's Government from(a) the Government, (b) citizens and (c) non-governmental organisations of the Irish Republic regarding the plans to open the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Yeo
  In total, 83,000 responses were received including a response from the Government of the Irish Republic. A breakdown of the responses as requested by the hon. Member is not available.

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to protect sites of importance for nature and landscape conservation from being destroyed prior to applications being made for planning permission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government encourage local authorities to adopt appropriate policies in their development plans and to make full use of their powers under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and under planning legislation to protect sites which they recognise as sites of local ecological importance. I am satisfied that measures available to local authorities are sufficient to secure the protection of such sites.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the percentage rate for implementing European Community directives on the environment by each member state.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest available information is set out in the Commission's ninth annual report to the European Parliament, "Commission Monitoring of the Application of Community Law—1991", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the recommendations made by the Radioactive Waste Management advisory committee on the principle of substitution made available to the Government on October 1992; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will make it his policy to publish the report produced by the radioactive waste management advisory committee on waste reprocessing and storage at Sellafield.

  Mr. Yeo
  The RWMAC report on waste substitution will be released shortly and a copy placed in the Library.

  Council Tax Appeals
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what broad timetable he has now agreed with the Valuation Office agency for resolving the council tax appeals which have already been received.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are still discussing this matter with the Valuation Office agency and representatives of the valuation tribunals. We are anxious that appeals should be dealt with as quickly as is compatible with the right of taxpayers to have their appeals considered thoroughly and carefully, including where necessary or where they so wish by an independent tribunal.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average cost of dealing with a council tax appeal in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  The estimated average cost of dealing with council tax appeals is £.112 in 1993–94 and £111 in 1994–95.
  102
  These estimates include Valuation Office agency and valuation tribunal costs and are based on planning assumptions made at the beginning of the financial year.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will consider an increased use of the private sector in order to speed up the processing of council tax appeals.

  Mr. Baldry
  I do not consider that this would be appropriate, or would in practice secure faster processing of appeals within available resources.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the timetable for Government decision in relation to grant levy available to housing associations for the financial year 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grant rates will be announced in time for the next annual bidding round.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has had from the Housing Corporation about private finance for housing associations; and when he expects to announce the grant rates for next year.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received initial advice from the corporation about the grant rate for 1994–95. There are a number of areas on which we have asked the corporation for further information and we are currently awaiting its response. Grant rates will be announced in time for the next annual bidding round.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the advice he has received from the Housing Corporation on grant levy available to housing associations for 1994–95, on private finance, and on other related issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  We have no plans to publish the advice we receive from the board of the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the 20 largest housing associations the most recent figures for the amount of annual Government grant they receive, the number of houses under their management and the ratio between the two.

  Sir George Young
  Housing associations provide a wide diversity of accommodation from general family housing to homes for those with special needs. Allocations of housing association grant in any year depend on an individual association's ability to meet priority housing needs cost effectively. The amount of grant received in any year will therefore vary. The allocation figures represent the total grant cost of new schemes which the associations are invited to bring forward for approval during the course of the year. The figures for the 1993–94 allocations for the 20 largest housing associations are as follows:
  103

  Housing association

  Total housing under management

  1993–94 Housing asso-ciation grant allocation £million

  Notting Hill Housing Trust

  9,197

  29·59

  Merseyside Improved Houses

  14,806

  9·26

  The Royal British Legion

  11,993

  1·43

  Hanover

  8,637

  9·87

  Anchor

  22,380

  6·95

  Sanctuary

  11,491

  45·21

  Peabody

  11,819

  20·83

  Circle Thirty Three

  7,053

  23·90

  Northern Counties

  11,168

  27·16

  The North British

  21,947

  52·67

  North

  21,249

  19·13

  Broomleigh

  12,318

  0·10

  The Guinness Trust

  10,335

  19·49

  The Sutton Housing Trust

  14,259

  8·43

  London & Quadrant HousingTrust

  13,628

  45·72

  Liverpool Housing Trust Ltd.

  7,155

  4·23

  Bradford & Northern

  8,336

  21·90

  Focus

  7,524

  14·98

  Bedfordshire Pilgrims

  7,308

  5·41

  Swale

  7,284

  1·48

  Radioactive Waste Inventory
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), of 19 May Official Report, column 179, if he will set out the reasons for the delay in publishing the 1991 United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory; and what steps will be taken to speed up the publication of the 1992 and 1993 inventories.

  Mr. Yeo
  The 1991 United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory was produced by Electrowatt Engineering Ltd. under joint contract to the Department of the Environment and UK Nirex Ltd. It contains substantially more data than previous inventories and there were some problems in clearing and verifying this data with the industry. The next inventory, which will show stocks of radioactive waste as at 1 January 1994, will broadly follow this new format and we will be looking to the industry for a quicker response.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 181, on transborder impacts of environmental pollution, if he will set out the multilateral treaties and EC directives containing formal consultation between parties on transfrontier issues to which he refers.

  Mr. Yeo
  The most significant directives and treaties containing provisions for consultation between parties are:

  77/795/EEC—Decision establishing a common procedure for the exchange of information on the quality of surface fresh water.

  80/779/EEC—air quality standards for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates.

  82/176/EEC and 84/156/EEC—limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges.

  82/501/EEC and amendments—major accident hazards.

  83/153/EEC—limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges.

  104

  85/203/EEC—air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide.

  85/337/EEC—assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

  88/609/EEC—limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.

  92/72/EEC—air pollution by ozone.

  Paris Convention from the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources.

  Oslo Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft (this and the Paris Convention to be replaced by a Co-operation Agreement for the Protection of Coasts and Waters of the North-east Atlantic against Pollution).

  Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

  Helsinki Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.

  Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.

  ReChem Incineration Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department is required to reply to the European Commission inquiry over the applicability of EC directive 82/501/EEC to the operation of the toxic waste incinerator by ReChem at Pontypool.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom Government were required to respond within two months of receipt of the letter from the EC Commission which was dated 18 February 1993. Our permanent representative to the EC sent his response on 16 April 1993.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many, and what percentage of the total number of, city challenge board members are(a) business men, (b) local councillors and (c) representatives of community groups.

  Mr. Baldry
  Some appointments for the second round city challenge boards have yet to be finalised. From the information currently available, the membership of the 31 city challenge boards will be composed of 152 (29 per cent.) private sector, 143 (27 per cent.) local authority and 145 (27 per cent.) community members. Ninety-one (17 per cent.) will be from other agencies and interested organisations.

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

  Mr. Baldry
  The 31 city challenge partnerships receive regular visits from their sponsor Ministers as well as Ministers from this Department.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was(a) originally allocated, (b) allocated for the first year and (c) spent by each city challenge authority in the first year.

  Mr. Baldry
  Each round 1 city challenge partnership has received a total funding allocation of £7·5 million per annum for five years. Partnerships' expenditure limits were revised as appropriate during 1992–93 in order to offset predicted underspends, as they became known, against opportunities to expedite spend elsewhere. These in-year changes do not affect the overall sum allocated to each partnership, which remains at £37·5 million for the five years.
  105
  Final expenditure limits and current best estimates of spend against expenditure limits in 1992–93 for all round 1 city challenge partnerships are as follows:

  £ million

  Authority

  Final City Challenge expenditure limit in 1992–93

  Expenditure in 1992–931

  Lewisham

  7·87

  7·82

  Tower Hamlets

  6·39

  6·36

  Nottingham

  7·65

  7·44

  Wolverhampton

  8·24

  8·24

  Bradford

  7·43

  7·42

  Dearne Valley

  7·10

  7·10

  Manchester

  7·83

  7·83

  Liverpool

  7·50

  7·50

  Wirral

  7·50

  7·48

  Middlesbrough

  7·49

  7·48

  Newcastle

  7·50

  7·50

  1 All figures for expenditure in 1992–93 are provisional. Final figures will not be available until after the receipt of authorities' 1992–93 final audited claims.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of Tower Hamlets' city challenge.

  Mr. Baldry
  The 1993–94 action plan for the Bethnal Green city challenge in Tower Hamlets is currently before us for consideration. It is expected that a decision will be issued soon.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he had concerning exit strategies for the first round city challenge authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The need for planned exit strategies was highlighted in the guidance given to the first round city challenge authorities on the preparation of their action plans. The development of exit strategies is monitored as part of the annual review.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the meetings that the Local Government Commission has held to discuss its proposals for the review of local government in respect of Derbyshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the Local Government Commission.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the average length of time he expects those council tax banding appeals which have been received to date to take(a) to be considered by valuation offices and (b) to be determined by valuation appeal tribunals if referred to such a tribunal;

  (2) how many of the council tax banding appeals so far received he expects to be determined by the end of (a) June, (b) September, (c) December and (d) March 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  The length of time taken by listing officers and valuation tribunals to clear appeals will depend on the number ultimately received and the complexity of the appeal caseload. In the light of information about proposals received to date, targets for the clearance of 106
  appeals are being discussed with the Valuation Office Agency and valuation tribunals and will be announced in due course.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his latest discussions on future rounds of city challenge.

  Mr. Baldry
  City challenge has already been immensely successful in promoting new partnerships and providing a new impetus to urban regeneration. Future rounds of city challenge will be considered in the light of results from the 1991 census and after taking stock of the lessons from the first two competitions.

  National Sustainability Strategy
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to invite views from the National Recycling Forum on the United Kingdom national sustainability strategy to be submitted to the UN Commission on Sustainability Development.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are committed to widespread consultation in the preparation of the United Kingdom's national sustainable development plan. We welcome the views of anyone who would like to contribute to this consultation process. As the next stage in the preparation of the United Kingdom's plan, my Department expects shortly to issue a consultation paper and will send this to the National Recycling Forum.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received since the publication of the reports by the Local Government Commission on Cleveland and Durham and Derby.

  Mr. Baldry
  These reports are the commission's draft proposals on which it has asked for the views of local people. Representations are being made to the commission at this stage.

  Land Reclamation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of new development took place on industrial reclaimed land in 1992; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness, in terms of environmental safety, of reclamation of contaminated land; and if he will make a statement on the role played by his Department in support of the Urban Regeneration Agency in recycling former industrial sites.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information about the amount of land reclaimed for development in the years since 1988 will be available from the 1993 derelict land survey. This survey is currently under way and the results should be available early next year. The Government are aware of the need to ensure that the reclamation of contaminated land is effective and has published guidance on this subject. Further research into the threats to the environment posed by contaminated land and the effectiveness of remedial measures is currently under way. Subject to Parliament's approval, the Urban Regeneration Agency will be set up in
  107
  the autumn. It will be for the URA to determine its priorities and initial work programme within the scope of a corporate plan to be agreed with Ministers, but recycling industrial sites is likely to be one of its main objectives.

  Pollution, River Thames
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what checks are made and by whom, on pollution in the River Thames; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for monitoring the quality of the River Thames; the sampling results are available on public registers maintained in the NRA's Thames regional office.

  Planning Permission, Ninfield
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a paper outlining the background to, and the reasons for, the revocation order issued by him in respect of the authorisation granted by Wealden district council for the erection of a dwelling at Ninfield, East Sussex.

  Mr. Baldry
  A copy of the revocation order and associated papers have now been placed in the Library.

  Together these give full details of the background to, and reasons for, the Secretary of State's decision to revoke planning permission for the dwelling at Ninfield, East Sussex.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost to date of the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total cost of the Local Government Commission to 31 May 1993 has been £2,453,070.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his proposed timetable for legislation on economic instruments to promote the reduction and recycling of household waste; and what options the Government propose to enact.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are currently examining the responses to our consultants' reports on economic instruments for waste. In the light of those responses, we are actively considering whether to develop economic instruments to promote the reduction and recycling of waste and, if so, which instruments are likely to be most effective.

  Cities Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department was represented at the "Conference on Cities '93" at the international conference centre in Birmingham on 24 to 25 May.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department was represented at Cities' 93 on 24 and 25 May. My right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment opened the conference, and the then Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities visited on the second day. The Department also exhibited at the event.

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received the 13th annual report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. and learned Friend received RWMAC's 13th annual report on 10 May.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines were issued by local authorities as to the criteria to be used in producing unified development plans; and whether changes to these plans will be required following publication of new criteria in the regional planning guidance note No. 2.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have issued instructions on the production of unitary development plans through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991. It has issued guidance on national and regional planning policy through planning policy guidance notes, regional planning guidance notes, minerals planning guidance notes and circulars.

  National and regional guidance should be taken into account during the preparation of unitary development plans. When such guidance is updated, it may lead to plan changes.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is being used for revising the regional planning guidance note No. 2; and when he expects the revised note to be published.

  Mr. Baldry
  The revised regional policy guidance note 2 will be based on advice received from the standing conference of local planning authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  I expect a draft of the revised RPG2 to be published for consultation in spring 1994.

  Recycling
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a performance league table of local authorities which have achieved the largest volume of recycling waste products.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has commissioned consul-tants Coopers and Lybrand to survey the recycling plans of English waste collection authorities. This work, which will be completed shortly, is expected to provide information on recycling rates, as reported in the plans.

  Local authorities in England and Wales have also been asked by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy to provide information about recycling rates as part of CIPFA's 1991–92 waste collection and disposal surveys. I understand that the results of these surveys will be published shortly.

  I will arrange for both publications to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Horticultural Substitutes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to encourage the production of peat-free horticultural substitutes from recycled organic waste.
  109
  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have commissioned research into the potential markets for waste-based compost and are participating in the development of standards for it. This work is designed to address the main barriers to the use of waste-based compost.

  My Department funds a number of projects to encourage composting, including projects run by Friends of the Earth; the Henry Doubleday Research Association; and Wyecycle. We have allocated £15 million in supplementary credit approvals to local authorities in 1993–94, to enable them to set up recycling schemes, including organic waste composting schemes.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has given a grant of £409,000 to South West Water, under its DEMOS scheme, to explore the feasibility of co-composting sewage sludge and municipal solid waste.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage the use of recycled organic material instead of peat in tree planting programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has funded research by the Forestry Commission into good practices in amenity tree planting; and has supported publication of the resulting advice. Some of this work has indicated that thorough site preparation and post-planting care are often of greater importance for successful tree planting than the use of organic matter of whatever origin, including peat. The Forestry Commission has recently published a manual of good practice for the use of sewage sludge in forestry.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish full details of his Department's assessment of the compliance costs for small businesses in general, and dry cleaning businesses in particular, of commitments undertaken as part of the Montreal agreement on chlorofluorocarbons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Economic assessments under the Montreal protocol were carried out by the protocol economics options committee in 1989 and 1991. I am placing copies of these reports in the Library of the House.

  My Department works closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and the relevant trade associations on this issue. Last year the Department of the Environment commissioned a study of the use of CFCs in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry in the United Kingdom which looked, inter alia, at small businesses. This was the sister study to the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned report on solvent-using industries, including dry cleaning. Copies of both reports are in the Library of the House. Costs to small businesses must be expected to vary widely depending on the solution chosen and the particular circumstances involved.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the Ernst and Young econometric model for local government finance which is being utilised by the Local Government Commission.
  110
  Mr. Baldry
  The model has been developed by Ernst and Young in consultation with the Local Government Commission. Decisions on publication would be for Ernst and Young or the Commission.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what current research is being undertaken into the effects of naturally occurring radon gas on people.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  A comprehensive case-control study of lung cancer incidence in the areas with the highest domestic radon concentrations in the United Kingdom, Devon and Cornwall, is currently being carried out by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in association with the National Radiological Protection Board. This study is funded jointly by these groups, Government and the Commission of the European Community.

  The NRPB is also engaged in several epidemiological studies in collaboration with other Government departments and charities such as the Leukaemia Research Fund and the ICRF. These studies are investigating the effect of radon on the incidence of lung cancer, various other cancers, and leukaemia.

  In addition, the Department of Health is funding laboratory research which complements the human studies. These are designed to determine the mutation rate and toxicity in lung tissues.

  EC Environment Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he plans to put forward at the EC Environment Council meeting in Aarhus on 14 to 16 May.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government conducted a substantial publicity campaign on the duty of care on its introduction in April 1992. This was well received and more than a million copies of a free explanatory leaflet, which is still available, were distributed to trade associations and companies. The Department employed MORI to review the effectiveness of this and other publicity campaigns. The results of its survey, carried out in December 1992, showed overall high levels of awareness of information on the duty of care. It was clear that awareness was greater among waste disposers than among waste producers. Subsequently, companies have become more aware of the requirements on inquiry from their waste disposal contractors and local authorities.

  SSAs
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the additional educational needs distribution would have been in the 1993–94 SSAs for each authority if the new census data were incorporated.

  Mr. Baldry
  The additional education need index for 1993–94 recalculated to include information from the 1991 census is shown in the table.
  111

  Distribution of additional education needs index using 1991 census information

  Local authority

  Additional education needs index

  Greater London

  City of London

  1·143100

  Camden

  1·378000

  Greenwich

  1·039200

  Hackney

  1·735000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1·411050

  Islington

  1·466450

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·343450

  Lambeth

  1·735300

  Lewisham

  1·284200

  Southwark

  1·501950

  Tower Hamlets

  1·785800

  Wandsworth

  1·185100

  Westminster

  1·307150

  Barking and Dagenham

  0·758000

  Barnet

  0·814450

  Bexley

  0·567200

  Brent

  1·366950

  Bromley

  0·485150

  Croydon

  0·806850

  Ealing

  1·161250

  Enfield

  0·845050

  Haringey

  1·484350

  Harrow

  0·752500

  Havering

  0·448150

  Hillingdon

  0·641900

  Hounslow

  0·894050

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·545650

  Merton

  0·785000

  Newham

  1·514700

  Redbridge

  0·824300

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·526000

  Sutton

  0·567550

  Waltham Forest

  1·210500

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  0·748100

  Bury

  0·518700

  Manchester

  1·362050

  Oldham

  0·774900

  Rochdale

  0·801000

  Salford

  0·883850

  Stockport

  0·496200

  Tameside

  0·638150

  Trafford

  0·613950

  Wigan

  0·554400

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  1·257050

  Liverpool

  1·227850

  Sefton

  0·684750

  St. Helens

  0·604100

  Wirral

  0·839150

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  0·620950

  Doncaster

  0·708050

  Rotherham

  0·625350

  Sheffield

  0·783600

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  0·817300

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0·949900

  North Tyneside

  0·648200

  South Tyneside

  0·742850

  Sunderland

  0·776850

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1·173150

  Coventry

  0·848600

  Dudley

  0·536450

  Sandwell

  0·892550

  Solihull

  0·541250

  112

  Local authority

  Additional education needs index

  Walsall

  0·712350

  Wolverhampton

  0·967200

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  0·996100

  Calderdale

  0·704400

  Kirklees

  0·782750

  Leeds

  0·704550

  Wakefield

  0·551750

  Shire counties

  Avon

  0·561150

  Bedfordshire

  0·635150

  Berkshire

  0·522200

  Buckinghamshire

  0·477750

  Cambridgeshire

  0·488050

  Cheshire

  0·514800

  Cleveland

  0·817950

  Cornwall

  0·473850

  Cumbria

  0·493850

  Derbyshire

  0·472300

  Devon

  0·529250

  Dorset

  0·492250

  Durham

  0·595650

  East Sussex

  0·597850

  Essex

  0·484700

  Gloucestershire

  0·449300

  Hampshire

  0·487600

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·410500

  Hertfordshire

  0·461100

  Humberside

  0·637200

  Isle of Wight

  0·542150

  Kent

  0·496400

  Lancashire

  0·652500

  Leicestershire

  0·619500

  Lincolnshire

  0·484800

  Norfolk

  0·476100

  Northamptonshire

  0·505850

  Northumberland

  0·491800

  North Yorkshire

  0·383400

  Nottinghamshire

  0·652550

  Oxfordshire

  0·445150

  Shropshire

  0·475350

  Somerset

  0·409000

  Staffordshire

  0·479300

  Suffolk

  0·404600

  Surrey

  0·390250

  Warwickshire

  0·441550

  West Sussex

  0·405550

  Wiltshire

  0·437050

  Isles of Scilly

  0·360000

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the visitor rights factor was doubled in the other services block distribution in the 1991–92 standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Baldry
  The decision to double the weight on visitor nights was taken in the light of a large number of representations from local authorities suggesting that the weight of 0·25 of a resident, used in 1990–91, took insufficient account of the costs associated with tourism in such areas as environmental health and street cleaning.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council homes were sold by each local authority in the county of Kent since 1 July 1979;
  113
  what percentage of the total housing stock the total figure of sales represents in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  A table showing the available information on total council house sales for each English local authority in the period April 1979 to December 1992 was placed in the Library recently. The table also shows sales as a percentage of housing stock.

  By the end of 1992 four of the 14 local authorities in Kent had transferred most or all of their stock to a housing association—Sevenoaks ( March 1989), Swale (:March 1990), Tonbridge and Mailing (January 1991), Tunbridge Wells (January 1992). One further authority—Rochester upon Medway—transferred its stock to a private company in July 1990.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual running cost of the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The amount of grant in aid paid by my Department to the Housing Corporation for net running costs in 1992–93 was nearly £28 million. Expenditure during 1993–94 is expected to total just over £30 million, of which £2 million is for the second phase of the corporation's new information technology strategy.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been undertaken by his Department or consultants to his Department on the use of irradiation to treat toxic wastes.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have not commissioned any studies concerning irradiation treatment of toxic wastes.

  Biodiversity Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution Her Majesty's Government made to the conference on biodiversity convened by the United Nations environment programme at Trondheim in Norway on 24 to 27 May.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom participated in three of the five expert panels on biodiversity whose reports were presented at the Trondheim conference. The Government were represented at the conference by an official from my Department, and a number of technical experts from the United Kingdom also attended.

  Emissions Data
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State far the Environment (1) what evaluation his Department has made of the use of a geographical information system for providing publicly available data on emissions to air and water as stated in the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

  (2) what plans his Department has for the use of geographical information systems to provide detailed publicly available information on changes in local, regional and national environments.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: It is for bodies responsible for collecting environmental information,
  114
  including the maintenance of statutory registers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to consider whether the additional costs of providing geographic information in electronic form are justified.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is carrying out preliminary work to assess the costs and benefits of a geographic information system for a range of uses which may also include the statutory registers for which they are responsible.

  Environmental Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the pilot project established to test the effectiveness of British Standards 7750 on environmental management; and what meetings he, other Ministers or officials of his Department have had with British business to discuss the implementations of BS7750.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for the British Standards Institution to decide whether to amend BS7750 in the light of the recent pilot project for the standard. DTI has had no meetings with industry to discuss the implementation of the standard which is a matter for discussion between industry and the institution. My Department and the Department of the Environment are, however, considering possible accreditation arrangements in relation to BS7750 and the proposed EC regulation on eco-management and audit, and any such arrangements will be the subject of wide consultation with industry.

SCOTLAND

  Housing Conditions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the full survey of the condition of Scottish housing by Scottish Homes to be published.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes plans to publish the main report of the Scottish house condition survey before the summer recess.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the federation of tenants in Glasgow to discuss the findings of the 1993 house condition survey.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The main survey report on the Scottish house condition survey will be available from Scottish Homes before the summer recess, while publication of a special report covering Glasgow is planned for later this year. The Glasgow Council of Tenants' Associations may wish to consider these reports once they are published and to discuss them with the Glasgow district council.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make additional finance available to public sector landlords who have identified major dampness or condensation problems through the house condition survey;

  (2) if he will consider additional help to public sector tenants who are required to live in difficult to heat damp houses.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make additional finance available to those public
  115
  sector landlords where the house condition survey has identified major dampness or condensation problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make additional finance available to public sector landlords who have identified major dampness or condensation problems through the house condition survey;

  (2) if he will consider additional help to public sector tenants who live in difficult to heat, damp houses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Very substantial resources totalling some £900 million have been made available to local authorities, Scottish Homes and new town development corporations for capital investment in housing in 1993–94. Under the new system of local authority housing plans and housing capital programmes launched on 30 April, all authorities have been asked to assess their overall housing needs and draw up strategies and targets for tackling houses subject to condensation and dampness in their areas.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request Scottish Homes to prioritise part of its annual budget towards assisting landlords and tenants with capital works.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is part of Scottish Homes' aim to ensure that the quality of housing in Scotland is substantially improved. In approving Scottish Homes investment programme for any year, my right hon. Friend agrees the amounts which Scottish Homes will spend on particular priorities. The allocation of funds to specific geographical areas and projects is then a matter for Scottish Homes. Scottish Homes' total investment programme in 1993–94 will be £372·5 million of which £277·8 million will be made directly available for capital works on rented housing owned by housing associations, other approved landlords and Scottish Homes own stock.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request Scottish Homes to prioritise part of its annual budget towards assisting landlords and tenants with capital works to counter dampness and condensation.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scottish Homes' capital budget will be spent in each of the next five years on dampness and condensation; and what plans he has to increase the sums involved.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes is committed to improving the quality of Scotland's housing. In 1993–94 through its record investment programme of £372·5 million Scottish Homes will give particular priority to improving the condition of Scotland's housing stock. Priority will be given to projects which will eliminate or replace housing declared as below tolerable standard, and Scottish Homes will also, through its substantial investment in housing associations, other approved landlords and in its own stock, support improvement works which will help counter and eradicate dampness and condensation.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the Glasgow Council of Tenants' Associations to discuss dampness in the city's housing stock.
  116
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no plans for such a meeting. Investment in council housing to tackle dampness is a matter for Glasgow district council in the light of its own view of priorities within the substantial housing capital allocations made available to the council.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit Paisley, South constituency to assess the need for further investment in housing associations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The assessment of individual investment proposals by housing associations is a matter for Scottish Homes and private lenders. In total Scottish Homes allocation of funds to housing association projects throughout Scotland will be about £260 million in 1993–94, a record sum. The hon. Member may wish to pursue his particular constituency interests with Scottish Homes.

  Community Alarm Systems
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the percentage of(a) sheltered and (b) non-sheltered or general needs houses in the (i) district council, (ii) Scottish Homes, (iii) housing association and co-operative, (iv) private rented and (v) owner-occupied sectors which are served by community alarm systems.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information on sheltered houses, which covers the installation of community alarms, was published in December 1992 in the statistical bulletin, "Housing Trends in Scotland—Quarter ended 30 June 1992", which is available in the House Library. No additional information on community alarm systems is held centrally.

  Council Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new-build(a) sheltered and (b) non-sheltered or general needs houses have been built by Scottish district councils in each year since 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on housebuilding by user category is not readily available for the years prior to 1986 and could be extracted only at disproportionate cost. The available information is set out in the table.

  Local authority house building in Scotland for the years 1986 to 1992

  Category of need

  Year

  General needs

  Sheltered housing1

  1986

  1,192

  273

  1987

  1,068

  321

  1988

  1,249

  312

  1989

  953

  330

  21990

  677

  207

  21991

  567

  272

  21992

  325

  186

  1 Includes sheltered wheelchair housing.

  2 Based on incomplete returns.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had on the impact of VAT on domestic fuel for occupiers of public and private sector properties which are proven to be(a) difficult to heat and (b) in a colder climate than the British average.

  Mr. Stewart
  None. The Secretary of State has, however, received a substantial volume of correspondence following the Chancellor's announcement to which substantive replies have been sent.

  Functions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dinners, receptions or functions hosted by his Department since 1 May together with the purpose and the cost of each, where each was held and who attended; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table. It would not be appropriate or practical to list each individual who attended these functions. The costs quoted are approximate as the events are recent and, in most cases, final invoices have yet to be submitted.

  Dinners, receptions or functions hosted by The Scottish Office since 1 May 1993

  1 May

  Dinner at Edinburgh Castle in honour of His Excellency President Soares of Portugal and Senhora Soares.

  Hosted on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The guest list included a cross section of the political, commercial, academic and cultural aspects of Scottish life in addition to the President's official suite. 53 guests with approximate total cost of £3,500. The costs of this event will be met by the Government Hospitality Fund.

  6 May

  Working dinner at Bute House with the Agriculture Committee of the Bundestag

  Hosted by Mr. K. J. MacKenzie, Secretary, The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department and attended by members of the Bundestag Agricultural Committee, senior officials of The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department and the German Consul in Scotland.

  17 guests with approximate total cost of £560.

  7 May

  Reception at Stirling Castle for delegates attending the OECD Conference on "Values in Environmental Education".

  Hosted by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton MP and attended by delegates to the conference. 100 guests with approximate total cost of £ 1,500. The cost of this event will be met by the Government Hospitality Fund.

  18 May

  Reception at Edinburgh Castle for the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Council of Europe.

  Hosted by the Solicitor General for Scotland and attended by members of the Committee and Consular representatives of the EOCD member states. 90 guests with approximate total cost of £1,000.

  21 May

  Reception at Edinburgh Castle for delegates attending the Annual Conference of the European Pet Food Manufacturers Association.

  Hosted by Allan Stewart MP and attended by the conference delegates.

  150 guests with approximate total cost of £1,600.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has recently taken to discourage the abuse and illegal use of the drugs commonly known as "jellies"; what evidence he has received associating such misuse with crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The misuse of Temazepam capsules, sometimes referred to as "jellies", is a matter of continuing concern and, at the Government's request, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has conducted a detailed examination of the problem. The council has recommended that Temazepam should be rescheduled from schedule 4 to schedule 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. This would place more stringent controls on the production, storage and distribution of the drug; require doctors to handwrite all prescriptions; and create an offence of unlawful possession. The Government are presently considering the outcome of a wide consultation exercise on the possibility of rescheduling and will reach a decision on the matter shortly.

  The Chief Medical Officer at the Scottish Office has had discussions with directors of public health, and action has now been taken in a number of health board areas, for example by the introduction of voluntary bans or restrictions on prescribing and by raising the awareness of doctors of the implications of misuse. It is too early to assess the effects of these local measures.

  Drug misuse is closely associated with a wide range of criminal behaviour; and police reports indicate that the misuse of Temazepam is no exception.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what permissions he currently gives for the hunting of foxes on land owned by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No permissions are currently granted for the hunting of foxes on land owned by my right hon. Friend.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to allow the members he appoints to(a) health boards, (b) health trusts and (c) other non-departmental public bodies to choose their own chairperson or vice-chairperson; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  MV Braer (Oil Spill)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost to the Government of the MV Braer incident; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Government Departments—not-ably the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport —have expended considerable sums: additional environ-mental work by Government in Scotland has already cost of the order of £0·75 million. But it is at present too early to say what the Government's overall expenditure will be.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the employees of the Forestry Commission to discuss the Commission's future; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet representatives of the employees of the Forestry Commission. He understands that representatives of all the trade unions concerned are being kept informed of matters affecting their interests through meetings with the Director General of the Forestry Commission.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list for each housing authority area in Scotland the number of former council houses which were purchased under the right-to-buy provisions which have been repossessed over the last five years;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of purchasers of former council houses which were purchased under the right-to-buy provisions who have fallen into arrears over the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission research to establish what proportion of owner-occupiers who purchased their property under the right-to-buy provisions are finding it difficult to meet mortgage and maintenance payments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has commissioned a number of research projects since the right-to-buy legislation was introduced in 1980 and in January this year a research report "The Right to Buy in Scotland" was published. A copy is available in the Library. The report provides information on the effect of the scheme and shows that very few purchasers reported any difficulty meeting their mortgage repayments and that 70 per cent. found it easy. There are no immediate proposals for further research into the right-to-buy scheme.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice is given by his Department to prospective purchasers under the right-to-buy provisions about the financial burdens involved in servicing the loans and maintenance costs involved in home ownership.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Tenants who are considering buying their homes under the right to buy scheme can obtain a copy of the Scottish Office Environment Department's information leaflet "Buy Your Home" from their landlord or directly from the Department. The leaflet explains about the costs of buying and owning and advises tenants to seek advice from a solicitor or local citizens advice bureau if they require further information.

  Freight Traffic
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy on the recommendation on financial inducements to freight traffic to transfer from roads to ferries, proposed in 120
  paragraph 103 of the Scottish Affairs Committee's first report, HC 217, on "Scotland's Transport Links with Europe".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A large number of United Kingdom ports already fall within the definition of inland waterways and are therefore within the scope of the freight facilities grants scheme. The Government will be responding to the report's recommendations in due course.

  Conservation Sites
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if all sites of special scientific interest in Scotland will be designated as special areas for conservation under the EC directive on the conservation of species and habitats (92/43/EEC); and when he expects the designation process to commence.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No. Only a proportion of sites of special scientific interest will be of Community importance and thus candidates for designation as special areas of conservation within the terms of the directive. The designation process will commence after June 1998 by which date the European Commission and member states must agree the list of sites to be designated.

  Piper Alpha
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Lord Advocate has to initiate prosecution proceedings against the Occidental Oil Company as a result of the Piper Alpha disaster.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The decision taken by my noble and learned Friend's predecessor that there would be no criminal proceedings in relation to the Piper Alpha disaster was publicly intimated in July 1991 and in consequence, as a matter of law, there cannot now be a prosecution at the instance of the Crown in respect of this matter.

  Stornaway-Ullapool Ferry
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government intends to seek EC objective funding to help finance the replacement of the Stornaway to Ullapool ferry.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is too early to say what projects might be funded from 1 January 1994 under the new round of the European structural funds, the regulations for which are still under negotiation.

  Forestry
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions the interdepartmental working party on the Forestry Commission has met; and on what dates.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Review Group has met twice: on 31 March and on 19 May 1993.

  Art Therapy
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many grants the Scottish Office is awarding to Scottish students studying for the postgraduate diploma
  121
  in art therapy in (a) English higher educational institutions and (b) Scottish higher educational institutions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: The Scottish Office is supporting two Scottish students studying for the postgraduate diploma in art therapy at English higher education institutions in session 1992–93. There is only one similar course at a higher education institution in Scotland. It commenced only in session 1992–93 and the arrangements were finalised too late for it to be considered for an allocation of awards. The position will be reviewed for session 1993–94.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring he is carrying out of the factors influencing the drop out rate of first-year students on the postgraduate diploma in art therapy run by Edinburgh university settlement's school of art therapy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: The Scottish Office Education Department does not monitor completion rates on individual courses at higher education institutions in Scotland. The Department recently published research into factors affecting non-completion rates in Scottish Universities and issued guidelines for promoting effective learning in higher education. Together with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, the Department maintains a general interest in completion rates across the sector as a whole.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total EC funding available to the Edinburgh university settlement's school of art therapy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 May 1993 ]: I understand that Edinburgh University Settlement's school of art therapy is to receive funding of the order of 294,000 ECUs (£230,000) in the three-year period 1991–1993 through the European Community's HORIZON initiative.

  Self-build Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the Scottish housing budget was allocated to self-build housing in percentage and money terms; and what percentage was taken up in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Predicted and actual numbers of Red and Roe deer culled in Inverness forest district

  Red deer

  Roe deer

  Forest

  Predicted

  Actual

  Predicted

  Actual

  Year to 31 March 1991

  Culloden

  30

  34

  90

  92

  Glenmore

  47

  56

  30

  57

  Inshriach

  77

  97

  95

  97

  Lael

  20

  24

  5

  6

  Torrachilty/Black Isle

  100

  107

  15

  16

  Total

  274

  318

  235

  268

  Year to 31 March 1992

  Culloden

  35

  43

  90

  114

  Glenmore

  54

  61

  30

  23

  Inshriach

  77

  99

  73

  97

  Lael

  22

  24

  5

  7

  Torrachilty/Black Isle

  110

  114

  15

  19

  Total

  298

  341

  213

  260

  122
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: Some £900 million is available to local authorities, Scottish Homes and new town development corporations for capital investment in housing in 1993–94. No separate budget for self-build housing is prescribed, and it is a matter for the individual authorities and agencies how to allocate the resources made available to them.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics he has on the number of reported cases of food poisoning in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: The numbers of food poisoning cases notified in Scotland in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Number

  1988

  2,998

  1989

  3,197

  1990

  3,024

  1991

  2,938

  1992

  13,311

  1 provisional figure

  A more detailed analysis of food-borne infection in Scotland, and a commentary on the trends, may be found in part II of the report of the Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food, the Richmond report. published in 1991. The report recommended that the current arrangements for national surveillance co-ordinators should be placed on a more formal basis and that is now in hand.

  Deer Killing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each forest in the Forestry Commission Inverness district for each year from 1990(a) the culling targets for red and roe deer, (b) the numbers of red and roe deer actually culled and (c) the estimates of the red and roe deer populations.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The information is as follows:
  123

  Red deer

  Roe deer

  Forest

  Predicted

  Actual

  Predicted

  Actual

  Year to 31 March 1993

  Culloden

  40

  52

  90

  74

  Glenmore

  66

  5l

  35

  23

  Inshriach

  77

  95

  80

  73

  Lael

  20

  35

  5

  5

  Torrachilty/Black Isle

  120

  141

  20

  15

  Total

  323

  374

  230

  190

  Estimated populations of red and roe deer in Inverness forest district in May each year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Forest

  Red1

  Roe

  Red1

  Roe

  Red1

  Roe

  Culloden

  60

  270

  80

  300

  70

  300

  Glenmore

  110

  150

  100

  130

  90

  130

  Inshriach

  150

  300

  150

  250

  150

  200

  Lael

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Torrachilty/Black Isle

  400

  170

  350

  150

  300

  120

  Total

  740

  910

  700

  850

  630

  770

  1 The population of red deer in a forest will vary considerably during the year as the deer move from the open hill to the forest and back again. The numbers in the forest in the winter are likely to be much higher than the above population estimates made in May each year.

  Forestry Commission (Privatisation)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what aspects of the privatisation of the Forestry Commission in respect of(a) the ownership of woodlands and (b) the regulatory functions of the commission will require primary legislation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: Ministers have come to no decisions about the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment or the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands, which are the subject of review. Only once they have done so would they consider any consequent requirements for primary legislation.

  Scottish Parliamentary Business
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish National party to discuss procedure relating to Scottish parliamentary business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 May 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 5 May 1993 at columns 178–79.

  Persons with a charge proved where the main charge was for the breach of the Bail etc (Scotland) Act 1980

  Number of persons by disposal

  Average sentence

  Year

  Custody

  Community service order

  Probation

  Fine

  Caution/ Admonished

  Other

  Total

  Custodial sentence (days)

  Fine (£)

  High Court

  1987

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  456

  —

  1988

  5

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  11

  572

  —.

  1989

  5

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  10

  548

  —

  1990

  8

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  12

  201

  —

  1991

  4

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  9

  91

  500

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for the provision and maintenance of radio hearing aids for(a) pre-school children, (b) children at school and (c) students in further and higher education in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 May 1993 ]: Where a radio hearing aid is specified as special educational provision in the record of needs of a pre-school child or a child attending a school, it is the duty of a responsible education authority to arrange for the provision and maintenance of such aids.

  Boards of management of further education colleges have a duty to ensure that their college provides suitable and efficient further education. They have a power to provide to students such assistance of a financial or other nature as they may consider appropriate. In exercising their functions they must have regard to the requirements of those with learning difficulties. Education authorities' bursary arrangements provide a discretion to provide allowances for students with special educational needs.

  Within higher education it is for individual higher education institutions to consider the arrangements necessary to meet the additional learning support needs of such students. Eligible students in higher education may be entitled to disabled students' allowances, including provision for the purchase of specialist equipment as part of their student award.

  Bail
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average sentence imposed for breach of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, in the sheriff court and the High Court in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: The available information is given in the table:
  125

  Number of persons by disposal

  Average sentence

  Year

  Custody

  Community service order

  Probation

  Fine

  Caution/Admonished

  Other

  Total

  Custodial sentence (days)

  Fine (£)

  Sheriff Court

  1987

  401

  61

  70

  650

  228

  8

  1,418

  71

  120

  1988

  499

  114

  108

  661

  246

  16

  1,644

  79

  128

  1989

  574

  119

  161

  711

  235

  12

  1,812

  73

  125

  1990

  534

  149

  169

  677

  320

  11

  1,860

  76

  127

  1991

  487

  181

  213

  560

  286

  10

  1,737

  78

  122

  Community Charge
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of people in Scotland exempted from payment of the community charge on the grounds of severe mental impairment In each year of its existence.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: For each of the years in question the table shows the numbers of persons in Scotland aged 18 or over recorded on the community charge register as exempt from the community charge by reason of severe mental handicap.

  Number

  As at September 1989

  10,289

  As at July 1990

  14,794

  As at June 1991

  15,866

  As at June 1992

  17,720

DEFENCE

  Allivane Ltd.
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 October 1992,Official Report, column 610, when the 1988 contract with Allivane Ltd. was signed; for how long ammunition was stored in his Department's facilities for Allivane; when the consignment of ammunition was removed from this Department's storage facilities; and at what facilities the ammunition was stored.

  Mr. Aitken
  A contract between my Department and Allivane Ltd. for the short-term storage of ammunition was signed on 2 June 1988. The ammunition was stored at the central ammunition depot Longtown for a period of 10 days from 7 June until 16 June 1988.

  Mr. John Anderson
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the legal basis of the arrest by his Department's police, of Mr. John Anderson, in Scotland, on 24 April 1990; where and by whom the arrest warrant was issued; if he will place in the Library the findings of the board of inquiry into the subsequent road accident on the A249 near Dealing, during the afternoon of 24 April involving Mr. Anderson; what legal action resulted from the road accident; who covered the costs of the repairs to the respective vehicles involved in the road accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. John Anderson was arrested by Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) on 24 April 1990 in 126
  connection with the giving of a corrupt gift contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. He was interviewed and subsequently released without charge. The warrant for his arrest was issued by a justice of the peace at Ramsgate magistrates court, Kent. Whilst under arrest the MDP vehicle in which Mr. Anderson was travelling was hit by a private car. There was no board of inquiry into this matter, but a road accident report was undertaken by Kent police who decided that legal action was not appropriate. The MDP vehicle was written off and my Department received £2,000 from the third party insurance of the other vehicle involved which was at fault.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the buildings currently owned or rented by his Department, together with(a) the estimated value, (b) the annual rent and (c) the annual maintenance cost of each building in the current financial year.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since April 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since April 1989, the Defence Select Committee has published 42 reports on matters relating to my Department. These reports, together with the Government responses made to them, are available in the Library of the House; Government responses to the reports have appeared either as command papers, or have been published as special reports by the Defence Select Committee itself. My Department has contributed to the work of other Select Committees as requested; any reports reflecting these contributions are also available in the Library. The "Sessional Information Digest" lists Select Committee reports and provides reference numbers to Government responses up to the start of the current Session. Similar information for the current Session may be found in the House of Commons "Weekly Information Bulletin". Alternatively, Select Committee reports and the Government responses relating to them may be traced through the POLIS data base in the Library.

  Cadet Corps
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial resources have been devoted by his Department towards the running of the(a) Air Training

  127
  Cadet Corps, (b) Army Cadet Force, (c) Combined Cadet Force and (d) Sea Cadet Corps in each year since 1988.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Sea Cadet Corps1

  Army Cadet Force2 3

  Air Training Corps

  Combined Corps Cadet Force2 3

  1991–92

  4·0

  20·0

  25·1

  5·8

  1992–93

  4·8

  16·5

  27–5

  6·5

  1 Excludes the cost of the Harbour Training Ship HMS Bristol (about £1 million).

  2 Includes an element of capital works expenditure.

  3 For 1991–92 Earnings Related National Insurance Contributions for Combined Cadet Force Army personnel are included in the Army Cadet

  Force figure.

  Polaris
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, columns 81–82, if he will explain the differences between his answer and the evidence given to the Defence Committee on the annual operation and maintenance costs of Polaris on 30 January 1985, HC 37 (1984–85), p. 159, Q 935; and what items are included in the figure given in the evidence.

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures given in the answer of my right hon. Friend the member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) of 17 May (Official Report, columns 81–82) represent the best available estimate of the average annual operating cost of the Polaris system in the individual years 1991–92 and 1992–93. Figures given to the Defence Select Committee in 1985 are likely to have covered similar items, but were derived from a defence-wide cost-attribution system which is no longer in use. This system was largely reliant on contemporary judgments on the attribution of costs which were refined over time. It would not be possible to carry out a more detailed examination of the basis for the figures given in 1985 without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Hanley
  Reorganisation plans have an impact within my Department and throughout the armed forces. It would not be possible to list every section and organisation for which there are plans without disproportionate cost. A number of changes have already been announced and announcements will continue to be made as and when decisions are taken.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what will be the reduction, in square miles, between the European waters area currently covered by a one-hour response time for search and rescue helicopters as illustrated in annex A of "The Future Provision of RAF Search and Rescue Helicopters" and that illustrated in annex B in(a) the south-west approaches, St. George's channel Irish sea area, (b) southern North sea and Dover straits and (c) the North sea area between Peterhead and Flamborough head;
  128
  Mr. Hanley
  Information in the form requested is available only from financial year 1991–92 and is as follows:

  (2) what was the total area in square miles in the United Kingdom search and rescue region outside the standard one-hour response time (a) as illustrated in annex A of the defence open government document, "The Future Provision of RAF Search and Rescue Helicopters" and (b) as illustrated in annex C of the same document;

  (3) how large an area in square miles will be outside the standard one-hour response time within the United Kingdom search and rescue region for search and rescue helicopters as a result of redeploying Sea King flight 202 to RAF Chivenor from RAF Brawdy;

  (4) how large an area, in square miles, and how many miles of coastline, his Department calculated would be outside the standard one-hour response time for search and rescue helicopters when considering whether to transfer Sea Kings from RAF Boulmer to RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information required is not readily available within the timescale requested and I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  RAF Equipment
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when results of the RAF equipment supply study will be announced.

  Mr. Aitken
  In the autumn.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account is taken of cost effectiveness and value for money in the RAF study into equipment supply.

  Mr. Aitken
  Cost effectiveness and value for money in defence procurement are central to this study.

  Burtonwood Air Base
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future use of Burtonwood air base and his Department's surrounding land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  We are currently considering alternative defence uses for RAF Burtonwood once it is vacated by the United States army later this year and hope to take a decision on the site's future as soon as possible. In parallel we are discussing prospects for the site's development with the local authority should it be declared surplus to defence requirements; in this context a planning application for development of some of the land surrounding the main site has recently been submitted to Warrington borough council.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to provide support on the ground to their commitment of safe havens in Bosnia; what British forces are to be provided in support of this concept; and what rules of engagement they are being given.

  Mr. Hanley
  Security Council resolution 836 calls on United Nations member states to contribute forces to facilitate the implementation of the safe areas. The United Kingdom is proposing to continue the deployment of 2,100 ground troops serving with UNPROFOR Bosnia-Herzegovina command, which constitutes the largest national contribution to that command. A total 0f 173 of these troops are based at an airfield adjacent to the town of Tuzla. Tuzla and it surroundings is one of the safe areas designated by Security Council resolution 824. The troops will remain there, structured and equipped as at present. They will continue to operate under rules of engagement issued by the United Nations commander.

  Married Quarters
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the availability of housing including married quarters in the Stockport and Glasgow areas; and what is the estimated cost of each area for the location of additional personnel for the new Army personnel centre.

  Mr. Hanley
  The housing supply in both the Greater Manchester and Glasgow conurbations is adequate to meet the requirement likely to be generated by the Army personnel centre. Although some existing married quarters near to the locations could be used, extra quarters would need to be acquired in each case. Because there are currently fewer married quarters in the Stockport catchment area than in Glasgow, provision of married quarters for an Army personnel centre at Stockport would cost nearly £1,000,000 more than allowed in the investment appraisal for the Glasgow option.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost of providing additional parking facilities at Kentigern house for the proposed increase in full-time staff for the new Army personnel centre.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not proposed to add to the 96 car parking spaces currently available at Kentigern house; Glasgow has a most efficient public transport system which is the normal method of commuting into the city.

  Parachute Regiment
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what disciplinary action has been taken against those members of the Parachute Regiment who were bound over to keep the peace for 18 months in a recent court action arising out of incidents in Coalisland, Co. Tyrone.

  Mr. Hanley
  The soldiers were brought before the magistrates court for various charges relating to the alleged offences committed in Coalisland. No separate disciplinary action may now be taken against them for the same or substantially the same offences.
  130
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimated legal costs incurred by his Department in respect of the recent court action against members of the Parachute Regiment arising out of incidents in Coalisland, Co. Tyrone.

  Mr. Hanley
  The costs of this action will not be determined until solicitors' bills have been received for consideration and approval by the Crown Solicitor's Office, Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many senior and junior barristers were employed by his Department in the recent court action against members of the Parachute Regiment arising out of incidents in Coalisland, Co. Tyrone.

  Mr. Hanley
  On legal advice, four leading counsel and four junior counsel were employed to represent the particular interests of the individual soldiers concerned.

  Belize
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now review his policy in respect of the proposed withdrawal of British military forces from Belize; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Plans for the evolution of the British military presence in Belize were announced on 13 May. We see no reason to change these plans.

  Maralinga Nuclear Test Site
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet his Australian counterpart to discuss outstanding matters in regard to United Kingdom obligations to clean up the radioactive contamination at the Maralinga nuclear test site in Australia.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, plans to meet the Australian Ministers for Foreign Affairs and for Primary Industries and Energy on 17 June 1993 to discuss this subject.

WALES

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of the future of the Forestry Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I have received five written representations on this matter during the last year.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the number of people employed, (b) the area owned and (c) the amount of timber produced by the Forestry Commission in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:
  131

  Forestry Commission in Wales

  Year ending 31 March

  Number1 employed

  Area managed ('000s Hectares)

  Timber produced ('000s Cubic metres)

  1987

  1,700

  145

  761

  1988

  1,650

  l44

  753

  1989

  1,445

  143

  736

  1990

  1,410

  141

  689

  1991

  1,160

  140

  626

  1992

  1,290

  139

  733

  1 This includes directly employed contractors.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the trade unions of the employees of the Forestry Commission to discuss the commission's future; and if he will make a statement.

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Tuberculosis

  Clwyd

  48

  42

  36

  41

  33

  46

  39

  28

  22

  19

  16

  28

  30

  23

  Dyfed

  41

  47

  30

  45

  36

  35

  36

  44

  28

  21

  20

  32

  31

  32

  Gwent

  49

  56

  41

  49

  42

  29

  32

  34

  44

  25

  33

  20

  20

  29

  Gwynedd

  42

  40

  39

  34

  38

  19

  27

  22

  21

  33

  23

  26

  6

  21

  Mid Glamorgan

  90

  79

  80

  60

  51

  71

  51

  46

  45

  37

  49

  22

  21

  47

  Powys

  12

  14

  1

  5

  5

  4

  2

  6

  4

  1

  3

  3

  0

  1

  South Glamorgan

  80

  68

  62

  52

  50

  70

  49

  46

  44

  37

  37

  36

  45

  35

  West Glamorgan

  50

  44

  36

  37

  44

  34

  38

  23

  24

  28

  28

  27

  13

  12

  Dysentery (amoebic and bacillary)

  Clwyd

  10

  7

  7

  17

  9

  28

  33

  15

  9

  10

  27

  10

  72

  180

  Dyfed

  8

  9

  2

  5

  3

  7

  2

  9

  0

  10

  6

  5

  316

  31

  Gwent

  3

  0

  8

  5

  9

  10

  38

  19

  6

  31

  5

  0

  78

  96

  Gwynedd

  5

  5

  9

  6

  13

  20

  3

  0

  12

  3

  4

  2

  5

  16

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  10

  2

  3

  7

  33

  92

  178

  13

  3

  4

  39

  23

  110

  Powys

  0

  0

  1

  1

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  6

  South Glamorgan

  9

  8

  14

  6

  7

  26

  464

  48

  240

  25

  52

  166

  472

  228

  West Glamorgan

  2

  3

  3

  5

  4

  10

  4

  13

  3

  8

  17

  13

  2

  9

  Note:

  Tuberculosis data from 1982 may not be strictly comparable with those for earlier years because the system has been designed to enable notifications associated with chemoprophylaxis to be excluded. In the past this could only be done when chemoprophylaxis was identified.

  1 1992 data are provisional.

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Incomes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales over 16 years have an income of less than £75 per week.

  Mr. Redwood
  The estimated number of full-time employees in Wales at April 1992 with gross weekly earnings below £75 was 3,500.

  Electrical Goods
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage of electrical goods manufactured in Wales exported overseas in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not available.

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.
  132
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet representatives of the employees of the Forestry Commission. I understand that representatives of all the trade unions concerned are being kept informed of matters affecting their interests through meetings with the Director General of the Forestry Commission.

  Diseases
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of cases of(a) TB, (b) diphtheria and (c) dysentery in Wales for each county in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of notifications of tuberculosis and dysentery in each county in Wales in each year since 1979 are given in the following table. There were no notifications of diphtheria during this period.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no such plans at present.

  A465
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to give the start date for construction of the Aberdulais to Glynneath section of the A465.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A start to the main works is planned for 1993–94 contingent on the availability of trunk roads programme resources during the year.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest total figure for the number of(a) fatalities and (b) accidents on the A465 between Aberdulais and Glynneath since 1978.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 8 June 1992, column 57–59, for the number of accidents involving personal injury and the number of deaths resulting from accidents on the stretch of the A465 between Aberdulais, junction with A4109, and Glynneath, junction with B4242, for 1979 to 1990. Figures for 1978 are not readily available. Updated figures for 1991 and provisional figures for 1992 are given in the following table along with totals for the years 1979 to 1992.
  133

  Number of accidents1

  Number killed

  1991

  25

  3

  19922

  25

  3

  1979–19922

  263

  26

  1 Excluding those where there was no personal injury—for which no information is available.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the fatal accident on the A465 near Resolven on Tuesday 25 May.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A full report on the accident is awaited.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full-time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Redwood
  The estimated cost of the Welsh Office market testing programme since November 1991 is £647,000. The future costs of the programme have yet to be determined. There are the equivalent of approximately 7·5 full-time staff engaged on work relating to market testing. Coopers and Lybrand, Touche Ross and Price Waterhouse management consultants have been used in connection with the market testing programme. All three appointments followed competitive tendering exercises.

  Trawsfynydd Lake
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will close Trawsfynydd lake to members of the public until a full inquiry has been carried out into the radioactivity of the lake; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Regular monitoring of a range of environmental materials from Trawsfynydd lake is undertaken by the directorate of fisheries research of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This monitoring indicates that the radioactivity dose to the critical group, that is, people who consume fish from the lake and spend time on the lakeside, is well within internationally recommended safety limits. There would appear to be no reason, therefore, why Nuclear Electric should be advised to close the lake to the public.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the level of radioisotopes in Trawsfynydd lake.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Data on levels of radioisotopes in Trawsfynydd lake are collected in the course of routine monitoring by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Results are presented in the "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report" published annually by that Department's directorate of fisheries research. The latest issue, No. 34, item 6.10 of which refers to Trawsfynydd, is in the Library of the House.

  Bone Cancer
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many incidents of bone cancer there have been in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The recorded number of cases of cancer of the bone and articular cartilage for persons resident in Wales for the years 1979 to 1988 is given in the following table:

  Year

  Total

  1979

  83

  1980

  65

  1981

  52

  1982

  81

  1983

  85

  1984

  108

  1985

  97

  1986

  100

  1987

  88

  1988

  111

  Source: Welsh Cancer Registry.

  The ninth revision of the International Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death (ICD 9) was introduced in 1980. Prior to this date the classification of cancer of the bone and articular cartilage included certain types of cancer excluded in later years' figures.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes the National Radiological Protection Board has surveyed for radon in each year since 1989 in(a) postcode district SA, (b) Wales and (c) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of homes surveyed for which results are available are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Postcode SA

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  1989

  110

  390

  8,200

  1990

  25

  140

  3,500

  1991

  90

  430

  71,000

  1992

  7

  73

  23,000

  1993

  18

  110

  31,000

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his best estimate of the number of houses in postal district SA whose occupants are exposed to radon gas in concentrations of(a) 0 to 25 becquerels per cubic metre, (b) 26 to 50 becquerels per cubic metre, (c) 51 to 100 becquerels per cubic metre, (d) 101 to 200 becquerels per cubic metre and (e) more than 200 becquerels per cubic metre.

  Mr. Redwood
  The research completed to date does not allow the estimate requested to be prepared.

  Car Manufacturing
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of people in Wales directly employed by the car manufacturing industry in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.
  135
  Mr. Redwood
  Levels of employment in the car manufacturing industry(a) in Wales are given in the

  Employees in employment

  September

  Motor vehicles and their engines (a)

  Motor vehicle bodies, trailers and caravans (b)

  Motor vehicle parts (c)

  1981

  400

  800

  18,200

  1984

  600

  800

  12,600

  1987

  100

  900

  13,100

  1989

  —

  1,100

  8,800

  1991

  2,000

  1,100

  7,400

  Source: Employment Department.

  (a) Standard Industrial Classification (Revised) 1980 Group 351.

  (b) Standard Industrial Classification (Revised) 1980 Group 352.

  (c) Standard Industrial Classification (Revised) 1980 Group 353.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Sick and Disabled People
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much real spending on long-term sick and disabled people has changed since 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  Expenditure for benefits on long-term sick and disabled people in 1992–93 was nearly £15 billion; nearly treble the 1979 level in real terms.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to maintain support for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  Since 1979 we have introduced a wide range of improvements, aimed at providing a comprehensive and coherent system of disability benefits. These improvements include the introduction of disability living allowance and disability working allowance in April last year.

  By the end of 1992–93 expenditure on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has risen by 197 per cent. in real terms to £14·9 billion.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of recently retired pensioners income derives from state benefits.

  Mr. Hague
  We estimate that, in the latest year for which information is available, 36 per cent. of the income of recently retired pensioners was derived from state benefits.

  Notes:

  1. Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. Recently retired pensioners are pensioner units where the head of the unit is aged less than five years above the state pension age.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the average value of the capital assets owned by pensioners.

  Mr. Lilley
  We estimate that on average, between 1979 and 1989, pensioners' income from investments rose by 130 per cent. in real terms to £23·10 a week. Reliable information on the average value of all capital assets held by pensioners is not available, but just over half all pensioners own their own home. In England, the estimated average value of owner-occupied homes of those over 65 is more than £42,000.
  136
  following table. Figures are available only for years when a census of employment was carried out and the results prior to 1981 are not comparable with later years.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners retiring(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available, had incomes from savings; and what was the real average level of savings on each of those two dates

  Information is not available in the form requested because the family expenditure survey does not tell us when people retire. The information in the table is about those who have recently retired—that is, where the head of the unit is aged less than five years over state pension age. The sample size of those one year over state pension age would be too small to be reliable.

  Income from savings Recently retired pensioners

  Percentage of units with investment income

  Average amount for those in receipt1

  1979

  1989

  1979

  1989

  Pensioner couples

  73

  87

  21·60

  41·50

  Single pensioners

  60

  64

  12·60

  31·50

  All pensioner units

  68

  78

  18·20

  38·10

  1 £ per week, 1989 prices.

  Notes:

  Source: Family Expenditure survey.

  2. Recently retired pensioner units are defined as: single woman aged 60 to 64; single men aged 65 to 69; and couples in which the husband is aged 65 to 69.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had incomes above the national average in 1979, and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:

  Number of pensioners above contemporary average income

  (Millions of people)

  1979

  1988–89

  BHC

  AHC

  BHC

  AHC

  Pensioner couples

  0·8

  0·9

  1·0

  1·2

  Single pensioners

  0·7

  0·8

  0·7

  0·9

  All pensioners

  1·5

  1·8

  1·7

  2·1

  Percentage of pensioners above contemporary average income

  1979

  1988–89

  BHC

  AHC

  BHC

  AHC

  Pensioner couples

  18

  20

  20

  23

  Single pensioners

  16

  20

  15

  21

  All pensioners

  17

  20

  18

  22

  137
  Notes:

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. BHC and AHC denote before and after housing costs respectively.

  3. 1988–89 denotes a combined sample from the 1988 and 1989 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  4. Figures have been calculated using the methodology used to produce the Households Below Average Income results. They therefore relate to individual pensioners (rather than pensioner units) and assume all members of a household share the same standard of living.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the total value of an average pensioner's savings, investments and home; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1989, the latest date for which information is available, the average weekly investment income received by pensioners was £23·10. This represented an increase of 130 per cent. over the average sum of £10·00 received in 1979. Home ownership among pensioners increased from 40 per cent. to 52 per cent. over the same period, with 94 per cent. of pensioner owner occupiers owning their homes outright.

  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the trend in pensioners' real income since 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  Since 1979 pensioners' total average net incomes have increased by 30 per cent., or 37 per cent. after payment of housing costs.

  Fraud
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further action his Department is taking to reduce fraud.

  Mr. Burt
  This year an extra £10 million has been allocated to the Benefits Agency to provide additional trained staff in key areas, the development of information technology and further research to help step up the fight against fraud and abuse.

  We have also introduced new financial incentives to encourage local authorities to crack down on housing benefit fraud.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the extent of fraud in the social security budget; and what steps he is proposing to take to combat it.

  Mr. Hague
  Although the full extent of social security fraud is not known, a target of nearly £1 billion fraud savings has been set for 1993–94. The Benefits Agency has been allocated an additional £10 million for each of the next three years to allow the deployment of more investigators and to finance other anti-fraud initiatives. New financial incentives have also been introduced to encourage local authorities to combat housing benefit/ council tax benefit fraud.

  Benefits
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent measures his Department has taken to maintain the real level of benefits.
  138
  Mr. Burt
  From April this year we have maintained the real values of all social security benefits by fully uprating them in line with the movement in prices. Because of our success in keeping inflation down this increase, based on last September's RPI, was over twice as much as it would have been using the current inflation rate of 1·3 per cent.

  In addition, the continuing payment of the element previously allowed for payment of the community charge as well as 100 per cent. council tax benefit, provides extra help worth up to £1·64 a week for a single person and £2·90 for a couple. Overall this help is worth around £750 million a year.

  State Pension
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has had with respect to the future of the state pension.

  Mr. Hague
  We regularly receive representations about the state pension.

  Loans
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the operation of budgetary and crisis loans.

  Mr. Scott
  We are carefully considering the operation of the social fund in response to a number of authoritative reports and our own close monitoring of the fund.

  Elderly People
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to maintain support for the elderly.

  Mr. Hague
  Since 1979 we have maintained the real value of the basic retirement pension; improved choice and flexibility in pension provision so that now 67 per cent. of recently retired pensioners have income from occupational pensions; and the extra help above normal upratings made available to pensioners on income-related benefits since 1989 is now worth around £1 billion a year.

  21-hour Rule
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had on the 21-hour rule.

  Mr. Burt
  The 21-hour rule enables unemployed claimants in receipt of income support to follow part-time education courses while continuing their search for work. We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others over the past few months.

  Pensions Harmonisation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters he has received over the past 12 months from the general public about the issue of harmonising the ages of pension entitlement for men and women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Since the consultation document "Options for Equality in State Pension Age" was published in December 1991, we have received over 4,000 responses
  139
  from members of the public. The Government are committed to the equalisation of state pension age. We will announce our proposals in due course.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the rules for eligibility for the social fund to include fares to courts relating to family proceedings.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so. Arrangements concerning attendance at legal proceedings are a matter for the court.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received about his Department's consultations for automated credit transfer.

  Mr. Burt
  We have recently received a substantial number of representations about automated credit transfer, including letters from right hon. and hon. Members and a number of individuals.

  Pension Incomes
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much total pension incomes increased per annum between(a) 1974 and 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Hague
  Estimates of pensioners' income for 1974 have not yet been calculated on a basis consistent with those for 1989, the latest year for which data are available. However, our most recent comparable estimates show that annual increases in pensioners' incomes were, on average:

  (a) between 1974 and 1979–0·6 per cent. a year; and

  (b) between 1979 and 1988–3·3 per cent. a year.

  Active members (millions)

  All members (millions)

  Estimated liabilities (£ million)

  Average liability per active member (£)

  Average liability per member (£)

  Public sector unfunded

  2·8

  5·2

  170,000

  60,000

  33,000

  Private/public sector funded

  7·8

  14·9

  430,000

  55,000

  29,000

  All schemes

  10·6

  20·1

  600,000

  57,000

  30,000

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Notes:

  (a) Numbers of scheme members are based on 1987 GAD Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes.

  (b) Estimates of scheme liabilities are for 1991 and are given at 1991 prices.

  (c) Estimates of average liability per scheme member are illustrative and assume that sectoral scheme membership did not change between 1987 and 1991.

  (d) Active members are those currently contributing to the scheme. All members includes deferred pensioners and beneficiaries.

  Child Support
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who will be required to pay a fee, and how often, for a maintenance application to the Child Support Agency; how long applicants to the agency will be given to pay the fee; and what is the applicant's fee payable annually to the agency.

  Mr. Burt
  Both the absent parent and the parent with care of the children will be required to pay £44 each for the

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the amount of revenue that would accrue to the Government in the first full year from an increase in employees' national insurance contributions of(a) 1 per cent. and (b) 2 per cent.

  Mr. Hague
  The figures are as follows:

  (a) £1·8 billion

  (b) £3·6 billion

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has as to how many people below the basic rate income tax threshold will pay more national insurance contributions during the 1994–95 financial year as a result of the changes announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Hague
  It is estimated that in 1994–95 about 500,000 people whose earnings fall below the basic rate income tax threshold will pay slightly more in national insurance contributions.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are(a) the total numbers of members, (b) the total current estimated liabilities and (c) the average liability per member in respect of (i) private sector funded pension schemes and (ii) public sector unfunded pension schemes.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. Membership, and approximate liabilities, of public sector unfunded schemes, and of all funded schemes, including those public sector schemes which are funded, is in the table.

  annual assessment service, renewable each year. The fee is not payable if they are in receipt of income support, family credit or disability working allowance; they are under 16, or under 19 and in full-time education up to A-level or equivalent; or their income falls below a certain limit. Clients normally have 14 days in which to pay the fee.

  DNA Tests
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who will pay for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing, on a denial of parenthood, in cases where the Child Support Agency applies to the court for such testing.

  Mr. Burt
  Any parties who make an application to the courts for a declaration of parentage may request that DNA tests be taken, but there is no legal power for them or for the courts to require such tests. Where the Child Support Agency is the applicant it supplies conventional evidence to support its application and does not routinely invite or pay for DNA testing. However, the agency may pay for test fees at the express request of the courts, with the intention of seeking recovery of court costs awarded in its favour.

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Hague
  There are no current plans for any significant relocation or amalgamation of sections or organisations within the Department.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the buildings currerntly owned or rented by his Department, together with(a) the estimated value, (b) the annual rent and (c) the annual maintenance cost of each building in the current financial year,

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Wales have applied for sickness benefit for each month since January 1992; and if he will indicate the total cost of these benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. Available information about benefit claims is in the table and relates to the Benefits Agency's Wales area directorate; the boundaries of which do not correspond exactly with those of Wales. Expenditure on sickness benefit in Great Britain was estimated to be £315 million in the year 1992–93.

  Month

  Sickness and Invalidity benefit claims

  January 1992

  9,000

  February 1992

  8,000

  March 1992

  8,000

  April 1992

  7,000

  May 1992

  6,000

  June 1992

  7,000

  July 1992

  8,000

  August 1992

  7,000

  September 1992

  8,000

  October 1992

  8,000

  142

  Month

  Sickness and Invalidity benefit claims

  November 1992

  8,000

  December 1992

  7,000

  January 1993

  8,000

  February 1993

  7,000

  March 1993

  8,000

  April 1993

  7,000

  Centenarians
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men and women are expected to reach the age of 100 years or more in June; what were the figures for(a) January 1993, (b) January 1979 and (c) June 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:

  Number

  June 1993

  260

  January 1993

  264

  June 1979

  111

  January 1979

  108

  Nigerian Residents
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents of Nigeria are currently, to his knowledge, in receipt of either United Kingdom social security, housing or other benefit; and what information he has on their occupations.

  Mr. Burt
  In December 1991, the latest date for which figures are currently available, 206 people resident in Nigeria were receiving United Kingdom retirement and widows pensions. There are currently six residents of Nigeria in receipt of war pensions. Information on other benefits is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We have no information about the occupation of these beneficiaries.

  EC Citizens
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary' of State for Social Security what information he has as to how many non-British EC citizens claimed board and lodging allowances during the past 12 months; and what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no board and lodging allowance within the social security system. The Department's records do not show a benefit claimant's nationality so information about the numbers of non-British EC citizens who receive income support and housing benefit is not available.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-British EC citizens have claimed benefits in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months; at what cost and for what purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Separate information on the benefits claimed by non-British EC citizens in Great Britain and the
  143
  amounts paid to them is not collected. The information requested is therefore not available. The position in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to prevent non-British EC citizens from coming to the United Kingdom for the purpose of claiming board and lodging allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Students, pensioners and non-economically active people from member states of the European Community enter the United Kingdom on the condition that they do not become a charge on the social security system. An EC national seeking work in Great Britain may lose the right to income support after six months if he has not found employment and has no reasonable prospect of doing so. The only group of EC citizens and their families who can claim social security without qualification are those who are working or who have worked in the United Kingdom, but if unemployed, they must meet all the restrictions and requirements relating to such benefits. This means that they must generally be both available for and actively seeking work. Subject to this, all EC citizens have the right under European treaties to move freely to another member state.

  There is no board and lodging allowance within the social security system. People with a genuine rent liability may get help with their housing costs from housing benefit. The position in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full-time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Hague
  The cost to 31 March 1993 has been some £3·2 million and the expected cost for the financial year 1993–94 is broadly estimated at £3·5 million. Currently there are some 150 full-time staff assigned to the market testing programme. The following firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme:

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Kodak

  KPMG

  Hemsley Miller and Co.

  PA Consultancy

  PE International

  PMMS Consulting

  Price Waterhouse

  SEMA Consultants

  Shreeveport

  Symonds Facilities Management

  Touche Ross

  The above were all selected by competitive tender.

  Overpayments
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the cases of social security investigation in Lancashire in each year since 1989 resulted in identifying overpayments; and what was the total amount of these overpayments in each of those years.
  144
  Mr. Hague
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many sickness benefit claimants there have been in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the table. It is based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants at a point in time in each year.

  (i) Date

  (ii) Sickness Benefitclaimants1 2

  (iii) Sickness Benefitbeneficiaries1

  2 June 1979

  488,000

  430,000

  31 May 1980

  450,000

  384,000

  30 May 1981

  410,000

  352,000

  29 May 1982

  469,000

  393,000

  2 April 1983

  408,000

  338,000

  31 March 1984

  247,000

  190,000

  30 March 1985

  225,000

  180,000

  5 April 1986

  237,000

  179,000

  4 April 1987

  187,000

  110,000

  2 April 1988

  228,000

  117,000

  1 April 1989

  266,000

  109,000

  31 March 1990

  309,000

  103,000

  30 March 1991

  372,000

  110,000

  Notes:

  1 Statutory sick pay introduced from 6 April 1993 for a maximum eight weeks sickness absence in a tax year. From 6 April 1986 statutory sick pay was payable for up to 28 weeks in any one period of incapacity for work.

  2 Includes claimants who are not entitled to sickness benefit, but receive national insurance credits.

  Spending
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the change in real terms in social security spending in each year since 1978; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of total social security spending from 1978–79 to 1992–93 are in the table.

  Expenditure in £ million

  Percentage change in real terms over previous year

  Years

  Cash

  1992–93 prices

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  16,602

  46,341

  —

  1979–80

  19,616

  46,927

  1·27

  1980–81

  23,751

  48,017

  2·32

  1981–82

  28,963

  53,397

  11·21

  1982–83

  33,000

  56,794

  6·36

  1983–84

  36,881

  60,666

  6·82

  1984–85

  39,957

  62,553

  3·11

  1985–86

  43,502

  64,577

  3·24

  1986–87

  46,859

  67,393

  4·36

  1987–88

  49,145

  66,998

  -0·59

  1988–89

  49,967

  63,496

  -5·23

  1989–90

  53,026

  63,227

  -0–42

  1990–91

  59,497

  65,683

  3·89

  1991–92

  69,048

  71,465

  8·80

  1992–93

  78,343

  78,343

  9·62

  Notes:

  1. 1992–93 figures are estimated outturn.

  2. The real terms decrease over the period 1987–88 to 1989–90 is largely attributable to the fall in unemployment since 1986.

  Unemployed Volunteers
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date his proposal to relax the availability for work rule for unemployed volunteers will be implemented; and if the concession concerning 48 hours will be extended to unemployed claimants who(a) provide a caring service, (b) have a part-time job or (c) attend a part-time training or education course under the 21-hour rule; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We hope to introduce an amendment to regulations for implementation during the summer.

  Many unemployed people who provide a caring service are not required to be available for work at all. However, we have no plans to extend the proposed concession other than to those who are volunteers.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many attendance allowance claims have(a) resulted in an award and (b) been rejected, broken down by the type of evidence required, in each month since May 1992 at each disability benefit centre and for the country as a whole.

  Annex A: Awards on AA 65 + claims by evidence types, DBC and month

  Type of evidence

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  May 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  90

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  89

  Edinburgh

  1,137

  161

  3

  5

  663

  1

  0

  304

  Newcastle

  605

  154

  2

  50

  247

  0

  0

  152

  Leeds

  2,393

  789

  7

  23

  1,096

  1

  1

  476

  Manchester

  985

  223

  0

  59

  421

  0

  0

  282

  Bootle

  994

  179

  5

  122

  266

  0

  2

  420

  Birmingham

  3,149

  642

  12

  20

  1,630

  0

  2

  843

  Bristol

  2,081

  1,241

  27

  75

  357

  0

  0

  381

  Cardiff

  515

  77

  1

  0

  165

  0

  1

  271

  Wembley

  3,338

  806

  12

  174

  1,774

  0

  0

  572

  Sutton

  1,998

  235

  2

  20

  1,057

  1

  1

  682

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  17,285

  4,507

  71

  548

  7,677

  3

  7

  4,472

  June 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  99

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  95

  Edinburgh

  3,015

  684

  2

  37

  1,761

  0

  2

  529

  Newcastle

  655

  119

  0

  26

  291

  0

  0

  219

  Leeds

  1,453

  360

  7

  40

  456

  0

  2

  588

  Manchester

  1,019

  306

  1

  123

  270

  0

  0

  319

  Bootle

  1,097

  252

  19

  183

  179

  0

  2

  462

  Birmingham

  3,439

  658

  12

  88

  1,834

  0

  2

  845

  Bristol

  2,033

  1,331

  45

  39

  154

  0

  3

  461

  Cardiff

  1,189

  318

  24

  4

  389

  0

  0

  454

  Wembley

  3,331

  1,226

  34

  149

  1,224

  0

  2

  696

  Sutton

  2,423

  289

  8

  54

  1,172

  1

  2

  897

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  19,753

  5,544

  152

  743

  7,733

  1

  15

  5,565

  July 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  77

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  77

  Edinburgh

  2,255

  729

  1

  53

  873

  0

  1

  598

  Newcastle

  881

  279

  3

  35

  280

  0

  0

  284

  Leeds

  3,334

  2,080

  12

  118

  467

  0

  1

  656

  Manchester

  1,799

  648

  0

  253

  215

  0

  0

  683

  Bootle

  1,468

  596

  29

  184

  187

  0

  0

  472

  Birmingham

  3,830

  1,311

  27

  194

  1,094

  0

  0

  1,204

  Bristol

  4,176

  2,796

  79

  523

  212

  1

  0

  565

  146
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of attendance allowance 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. Paul Flynn, dated 27 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many attendance allowance claims have (a) resulted in an award and (b) been rejected, broken down by the type of evidence required, in each month since May 1992 at each disability benefit centre and for the country as a whole.

  The information has been provided in the form of a table attached and shows the results nationally, by each Disability Benefit Centre and at the unit at Blackpool. The categories of evidence used within the tables are as follows:

  01—Claimants self-assessment as on claim form

  02—Additional information

  03—Factual report (hospital, GP)

  04—External Medical Practitioner

  05—Visting Officer

  06—Visiting Officer plus other

  Unknown—Evidence type not recorded

  The table includes information on both normal and special rules claims.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.
  147

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  Cardiff

  4,234

  3,029

  133

  95

  460

  1

  0

  516

  Wembley

  5,044

  3,400

  57

  162

  578

  1

  1

  845

  Sutton

  4,111

  1,794

  12

  54

  811

  2

  1

  1,437

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  31,209

  16,662

  353

  1,671

  5,177

  5

  4

  7,337

  August 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  125

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  122

  Edinburgh

  2,391

  1,398

  4

  200

  438

  0

  0

  351

  Newcastle

  795

  246

  6

  29

  262

  0

  0

  252

  Leeds

  4,512

  3,453

  19

  96

  423

  3

  0

  518

  Manchester

  3,065

  902

  0

  533

  367

  0

  0

  1,263

  Bootle

  3,574

  2,520

  133

  342

  261

  0

  0

  318

  Birmingham

  4,526

  2,625

  33

  724

  816

  0

  0

  328

  Bristol

  5,442

  4,259

  88

  634

  319

  2

  0

  140

  Cardiff

  3,514

  2,951

  56

  264

  107

  1

  0

  135

  Wembley

  5,258

  4,004

  74

  70

  373

  0

  0

  737

  Sutton

  6,185

  5,006

  8

  131

  327

  1

  0

  712

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  39,387

  27,366

  421

  3,024

  3,693

  7

  0

  4,876

  September 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  112

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  110

  Edinburgh

  5,472

  3,338

  2

  536

  1,293

  1

  0

  302

  Newcastle

  1,343

  441

  7

  140

  552

  0

  0

  203

  Leeds

  5,969

  4,523

  19

  202

  686

  0

  0

  539

  Manchester

  3,920

  2,287

  7

  501

  687

  1

  0

  437

  Bootle

  3,599

  2,370

  219

  433

  299

  1

  1

  276

  Birmingham

  8,020

  5,639

  44

  819

  1,191

  0

  1

  326

  Bristol

  4,894

  3,594

  109

  556

  548

  1

  2

  84

  Cardiff

  3,779

  2,705

  30

  444

  409

  0

  1

  190

  Wembley

  8,493

  6,415

  117

  145

  967

  1

  1

  847

  Sutton

  10,502

  7,976

  70

  380

  955

  1

  1

  1,119

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  56,103

  39,290

  624

  4,156

  7,587

  6

  7

  4,433

  October 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  106

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  105

  Edinburgh

  7,238

  4,202

  18

  1,014

  1,542

  0

  0

  462

  Newcastle

  967

  236

  3

  54

  346

  0

  0

  328

  Leeds

  5,608

  3,714

  21

  267

  829

  1

  1

  775

  Manchester

  3,797

  2,151

  4

  408

  910

  0

  0

  324

  Bootle

  3,382

  1,763

  183

  523

  529

  3

  0

  381

  Birmingham

  10,375

  7,116

  16

  1,074

  1,604

  0

  0

  565

  Bristol

  5,399

  3,987

  120

  642

  429

  6

  10

  211

  Cardiff

  3,097

  2,020

  5

  494

  307

  1

  0

  270

  Wembley

  8,101

  5,422

  95

  210

  1,392

  0

  5

  977

  Sutton

  8,135

  5,158

  164

  218

  990

  1

  1

  1,603

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  56,205

  35,770

  629

  4,904

  8,872

  12

  17

  6,001

  Type of evidence

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  November 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  116

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  112

  Edinburgh

  3,145

  1,687

  2

  449

  647

  0

  0

  360

  Newcastle

  1,221

  344

  13

  186

  340

  0

  0

  338

  Leeds

  3,491

  2,373

  14

  106

  411

  0

  0

  587

  Manchester

  3,113

  1,847

  8

  307

  672

  0

  0

  279

  Bootle

  2,515

  1,309

  121

  370

  432

  0

  0

  283

  Birmingham

  4,542

  2,871

  16

  667

  579

  0

  0

  409

  Bristol

  2,147

  1,297

  63

  536

  018

  9

  11

  123

  Cardiff

  1,224

  599

  11

  241

  115

  0

  3

  255

  Wembley

  5,364

  3,405

  29

  167

  986

  1

  1

  775

  Sutton

  4,546

  2,947

  103

  72

  463

  0

  0

  959

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  31,424

  18,680

  380

  3,102

  4,757

  10

  15

  4,480

  December 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  164

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  164

  Edinburgh

  2,572

  1,330

  1

  443

  467

  0

  0

  331

  Newcastle

  1,353

  647

  5

  156

  226

  0

  0

  319

  Leeds

  3,109

  2,216

  17

  76

  214

  0

  0

  586

  148 149

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  Manchester

  1,812

  969

  4

  184

  359

  0

  0

  296

  Bootle

  1,410

  598

  62

  242

  297

  0

  0

  211

  Birmingham

  3,352

  1,880

  11

  693

  406

  1

  0

  361

  Bristol

  2,737

  2,047

  64

  418

  67

  3

  1

  137

  Cardiff

  2,065

  1,203

  32

  465

  80

  0

  1

  284

  Wembley

  4,864

  2,987

  28

  201

  945

  1

  0

  702

  Sutton

  3,863

  2,541

  22

  79

  311

  1

  0

  909

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  27,301

  16,418

  246

  2,957

  3,372

  6

  2

  4,300

  January 1993

  AAU-Norcross

  237

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  235

  Edinburgh

  2,986

  1,526

  2

  471

  543

  1

  0

  443

  Newcastle

  908

  373

  0

  106

  72

  0

  0

  357

  Leeds

  3,040

  1,885

  33

  136

  384

  0

  2

  600

  Manchester

  2,220

  1,166

  4

  289

  411

  1

  0

  349

  Bootle

  2,464

  1,158

  181

  420

  431

  0

  0

  274

  Birmingham

  5,284

  2,919

  37

  929

  875

  0

  0

  524

  Bristol

  2,836

  1,860

  193

  534

  106

  1

  1

  141

  Cardiff

  2,123

  1,188

  64

  381

  158

  0

  2

  330

  Wembley

  5,208

  3,334

  65

  379

  700

  0

  3

  727

  Sutton

  8,487

  3,827

  83

  103

  425

  0

  0

  1,049

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  32,793

  19,237

  663

  3,748

  4,105

  3

  8

  5,029

  Type of evidence

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  February 1993

  AAU-Norcross

  1,510

  20

  1

  5

  29

  0

  0

  1,455

  Edinburgh

  2,706

  1,502

  6

  544

  308

  0

  0

  346

  Newcastle

  885

  464

  0

  92

  72

  0

  0

  257

  Leeds

  2,975

  1,878

  63

  112

  398

  0

  1

  523

  Manchester

  1,820

  898

  5

  350

  301

  0

  0

  266

  Bootle

  2,402

  1,307

  193

  339

  337

  0

  0

  226

  Birmingham

  4,852

  2,418

  101

  935

  1,061

  0

  0

  337

  Bristol

  2,390

  1,599

  138

  441

  116

  1

  0

  95

  Cardiff

  1,399

  746

  39

  298

  128

  0

  0

  188

  Wembley

  4,795

  3,107

  136

  476

  700

  1

  0

  375

  Sutton

  4,828

  3,405

  140

  111

  402

  0

  0

  770

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —:

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  30,562

  17,344

  822

  3,703

  3,852

  2

  1

  4,838

  March 1993

  AAU-Norcross

  2,905

  50

  1

  8

  54

  0

  0

  2,792

  Edinburgh

  1,881

  1,066

  9

  567

  175

  0

  0

  64

  Newcastle

  1,017

  555

  1

  166

  93

  0

  0

  202

  Leeds

  3,465

  2,334

  71

  149

  491

  1

  0

  419

  Manchester

  2,425

  1,262

  5

  485

  554

  0

  0

  119

  Bootle

  2,532

  1,307

  211

  485

  413

  0

  0

  116

  Birmingham

  5,879

  3,271

  140

  923

  1,496

  1

  0

  48

  Bristol

  3,277

  2,382

  232

  518

  140

  0

  1

  4

  Cardiff

  1,777

  1,193

  61

  310

  142

  0

  0

  21

  Wembley

  6,749

  4,488

  222

  875

  1,155

  0

  1

  8

  Sutton

  6,569

  5,168

  225

  179

  473

  1

  1

  522

  Glasgow

  1,291

  822

  5

  277

  187

  0

  0

  0

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  39,767

  23,898

  1,183

  4,942

  5,423

  3

  3

  4,315

  April 1993

  AAU-Norcross

  2,346

  52

  2

  12

  49

  0

  1

  2,230

  Edinburgh

  1,466

  750

  13

  463

  184

  0

  0

  56

  Newcastle

  871

  486

  1

  158

  58

  0

  0

  168

  Leeds

  3,226

  2,343

  59

  140

  377

  0

  1

  306

  Manchester

  1,817

  929

  8

  344

  385

  0

  0

  151

  Bootle

  2,089

  1,059

  166

  466

  269

  0

  1

  128

  Birmingham

  5,196

  2,843

  126

  879

  1,311

  1

  0

  36

  Bristol

  2,771

  2,044

  136

  497

  89

  0

  0

  5

  Cardiff

  1,396

  961

  58

  251

  102

  0

  0

  24

  Wembley

  6,351

  4,290

  195

  893

  950

  2

  0

  21

  Sutton

  4,336

  2,866

  162

  272

  408

  1

  0

  627

  Glasgow

  1,194

  722

  0

  235

  233

  0

  0

  4

  150 151

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  33,059

  19,345

  926

  4,610

  4,415

  4

  3

  3,752

  Annex B: Refusals on AA 65+ claims by evidence type, DBC and north

  Type of evidence

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  May 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  26

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  23

  Edinburgh

  297

  27

  1

  4

  145

  0

  0

  120

  Newcastle

  592

  0

  0

  1

  8

  0

  0

  583

  Leeds

  653

  258

  2

  9

  372

  0

  0

  12

  Manchester

  648

  171

  0

  86

  382

  0

  0

  9

  Bootle

  373

  61

  2

  75

  157

  0

  0

  78

  Birmingham

  1,462

  335

  2

  10

  1,072

  0

  0

  43

  Bristol

  316

  164

  6

  33

  101

  0

  0

  12

  Cardiff

  147

  29

  0

  0

  109

  0

  0

  9

  Wembley

  1,394

  300

  3

  123

  853

  0

  1

  114

  Sutton

  585

  153

  1

  11

  392

  1

  0

  27

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  6,493

  1,499

  17

  353

  3,592

  1

  1

  1,030

  June 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  44

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  43

  Edinburgh

  1,261

  147

  2

  28

  769

  0

  0

  315

  Newcastle

  423

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  419

  Leeds

  449

  128

  2

  28

  232

  0

  0

  59

  Manchester

  560

  232

  1

  169

  115

  0

  0

  43

  Bootle

  342

  53

  2

  109

  92

  0

  2

  84

  Birmingham

  1,189

  232

  6

  37

  840

  0

  0

  74

  Bristol

  311

  208

  12

  25

  44

  0

  1

  21

  Cardiff

  590

  295

  3

  1

  240

  0

  0

  51

  Wembley

  1,035

  341

  7

  107

  478

  0

  2

  100

  Sutton

  798

  242

  0

  24

  496

  0

  0

  36

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  7,002

  1,882

  35

  528

  3,307

  0

  5

  1,245

  July 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  34

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  32

  Edinburgh

  796

  180

  1

  33

  420

  0

  0

  162

  Newcastle

  533

  4

  0

  1

  5

  0

  0

  523

  Leeds

  526

  273

  1

  25

  165

  0

  0

  62

  Manchester

  900

  351

  1

  255

  178

  0

  0

  115

  Bootle

  586

  256

  11

  85

  148

  0

  0

  86

  Birmingham

  961

  365

  5

  48

  447

  0

  0

  96

  Bristol

  566

  303

  14

  136

  81

  0

  0

  32

  Cardiff

  2,406

  1,869

  48

  63

  391

  0

  0

  35

  Wembley

  801

  435

  4

  75

  223

  0

  0

  64

  Sutton

  1,320

  521

  6

  49

  532

  0

  0

  212

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  9,429

  4,559

  91

  770

  2,590

  0

  0

  1,419

  Type of evidence

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  August 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  68

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  65

  Edinburgh

  622

  244

  1

  50

  227

  0

  0

  100

  Newcastle

  565

  4

  0

  1

  5

  0

  0

  555

  Leeds

  660

  415

  1

  36

  175

  0

  0

  33

  Manchester

  1,106

  222

  1

  252

  281

  0

  0

  350

  Bootle

  468

  295

  14

  50

  69

  0

  1

  39

  Birmingham

  1,388

  772

  3

  61

  372

  0

  0

  180

  Bristol

  539

  289

  10

  115

  73

  0

  0

  52

  Cardiff

  1,372

  1,232

  12

  34

  51

  0

  0

  43

  Wembley

  446

  256

  5

  14

  127

  0

  0

  442

  Sutton

  1,031

  640

  3

  26

  54

  1

  0

  307

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  8,265

  4,371

  50

  639

  1,435

  1

  1

  1,768

  152 153

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  September 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  64

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  63

  Edinburgh

  1,905

  760

  1

  202

  713

  1

  0

  228

  Newcastle

  922

  71

  0

  19

  58

  0

  1

  773

  Leeds

  1,071

  478

  1

  131

  348

  0

  0

  113

  Manchester

  1,231

  436

  0

  88

  576

  0

  0

  131

  Bootle

  959

  378

  38

  252

  225

  0

  0

  66

  Birmingham

  2,675

  1,208

  8

  118

  516

  0

  0

  825

  Bristol

  791

  472

  19

  73

  122

  1

  1

  103

  Cardiff

  1,338

  835

  5

  165

  306

  0

  0

  27

  Wembley

  1,220

  629

  9

  31

  506

  0

  1

  44

  Sutton

  2,288

  1,371

  14

  112

  469

  0

  0

  322

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  14,464

  6,639

  95

  1,191

  3,839

  2

  3

  2,695

  October 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  48

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  77

  Edinburgh

  3,194

  1,003

  0

  291

  1,028

  0

  0

  872

  Newcastle

  689

  7

  0

  2

  3

  0

  0

  677

  Leeds

  1,163

  310

  9

  133

  383

  0

  1

  677

  Manchester

  1,113

  331

  0

  64

  660

  0

  0

  327

  Bootle

  912

  325

  25

  245

  270

  0

  0

  47

  Birmingham

  3,529

  565

  0

  48

  370

  0

  0

  2,546

  Bristol

  889

  612

  54

  104

  68

  2

  3

  46

  Cardiff

  1,086

  649

  1

  207

  194

  0

  0

  35

  Wembley

  1,546

  546

  7

  76

  833

  1

  1

  82

  Sutton

  1,406

  794

  14

  67

  383

  2

  0

  146

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  15,575

  5,142

  110

  1,237

  4,192

  5

  3

  4,884

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  November 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  36

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  34

  Edinburgh

  1,836

  764

  0

  250

  565

  0

  0

  257

  Newcastle

  666

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  664

  Leeds

  830

  233

  1

  40

  192

  0

  0

  41

  Manchester

  1,021

  354

  0

  78

  548

  0

  0

  27

  Bootle

  718

  240

  16

  213

  222

  0

  0

  1,070

  Birmingham

  1,711

  448

  1

  39

  153

  0

  0

  27

  Bristol

  428

  280

  31

  45

  31

  6

  8

  57

  Cardiff

  428

  317

  10

  78

  91

  0

  0

  57

  Wembley

  949

  355

  5

  61

  388

  0

  0

  140

  Sutton

  719

  436

  8

  31

  174

  0

  0

  70

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  9,468

  3,428

  72

  835

  2,367

  6

  9

  2,751

  December 1992

  AAU-Norcross

  72

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  71

  Edinburgh

  1,175

  520

  0

  164

  287

  0

  0

  204

  Newcastle

  526

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  523

  Leeds

  772

  284

  2

  35

  123

  0

  0

  328

  Manchester

  561

  239

  1

  56

  234

  0

  0

  31

  Bootle

  431

  125

  7

  101

  166

  0

  0

  32

  Birmingham

  1,436

  575

  4

  61

  245

  0

  0

  551

  Bristol

  443

  370

  21

  34

  16

  1

  1

  14

  Cardiff

  792

  545

  21

  141

  536

  0

  0

  32

  Wembley

  658

  240

  6

  19

  275

  0

  0

  118

  Sutton

  761

  427

  11

  55

  129

  0

  0

  149

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  7,627

  3,326

  49

  666

  1,531

  1

  3

  2,053

  January 1993

  AAU-Norcross

  75

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  74

  Edinburgh

  1,441

  671

  1

  214

  285

  1

  0

  269

  Newcastle

  465

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  465

  Leeds

  1,114

  413

  4

  99

  306

  0

  0

  292

  Manchester

  968

  509

  2

  144

  258

  0

  0

  55

  Bootle

  747

  251

  37

  163

  241

  0

  0

  55

  Birmingham

  2,174

  774

  3

  118

  523

  0

  1

  755

  Bristol

  583

  417

  31

  76

  27

  0

  0

  32

  Cardiff

  1,043

  620

  28

  186

  146

  0

  0

  63

  154 155

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  Wembley

  760

  238

  1

  72

  268

  0

  0

  181

  Sutton

  1,585

  684

  11

  44

  147

  0

  0

  699

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  10,955

  4,577

  118

  1,116

  2,202

  1

  1

  2,940

  Type of evidence

  Total

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Unknown

  February 1993

  AAU-Norcross

  273

  2

  1

  2

  4

  0

  0

  264

  Edinburgh

  1,279

  692

  3

  222

  190

  0

  0

  172

  Newcastle

  517

  62

  0

  7

  10

  0

  0

  438

  Leeds

  1,094

  519

  4

  102

  309

  0

  0

  160

  Manchester

  1,155

  677

  1

  242

  201

  0

  0

  34

  Bootle

  726

  305

  42

  138

  190

  0

  0

  51

  Birmingham

  1,452

  537

  6

  96

  566

  0

  0

  247

  Bristol

  552

  426

  34

  35

  33

  0

  0

  24

  Cardiff

  903

  613

  24

  100

  126

  0

  0

  40

  Wembley

  696

  287

  5

  72

  274

  0

  0

  58

  Sutton

  1,840

  747

  12

  56

  118

  0

  1

  906

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  10,487

  4,857

  132

  1,072

  2,021

  0

  1

  2,394

  March 1993

  AAU-Norcross

  674

  4

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  668

  Edinburgh

  758

  380

  0

  230

  117

  0

  0

  31

  Newcastle

  643

  424

  0

  122

  69

  0

  0

  28

  Leeds

  1,540

  884

  27

  151

  454

  0

  3

  21

  Manchester

  1,613

  962

  0

  264

  364

  1

  0

  23

  Bootle

  923

  382

  43

  204

  282

  0

  0

  12

  Birmingham

  2,176

  743

  12

  148

  902

  0

  0

  371

  Bristol

  863

  731

  25

  64

  39

  0

  0

  4

  Cardiff

  1,306

  980

  38

  120

  154

  0

  0

  14

  Wembley

  1,331

  688

  39

  153

  432

  0

  0

  19

  Sutton

  2,278

  788

  30

  40

  159

  0

  0

  1,261

  Glasgow

  1,101

  723

  0

  214

  163

  0

  0

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  14,105

  7,689

  214

  1,710

  3,137

  0

  3

  2,452

  April 1993

  AAU-Norcross

  503

  12

  0

  1

  6

  0

  0

  484

  Edinburgh

  526

  221

  3

  174

  103

  0

  0

  25

  Newcastle

  514

  340

  0

  114

  38

  0

  0

  22

  Leeds

  1,448

  975

  13

  122

  322

  0

  0

  16

  Manchester

  1,203

  706

  3

  190

  268

  1

  0

  35

  Bootle

  725

  335

  25

  177

  174

  0

  1

  13

  Birmingham

  1,960

  963

  15

  112

  781

  0

  0

  89

  Bristol

  783

  718

  10

  31

  18

  0

  0

  6

  Cardiff

  937

  765

  29

  43

  92

  0

  0

  8

  Wembley

  1,373

  714

  26

  176

  434

  0

  0

  23

  Sutton

  1,886

  1,259

  33

  99

  238

  0

  1

  256

  Glasgow

  1,540

  833

  4

  431

  265

  1

  0

  —

  TOTALS (ALL DBCs)

  11,858

  7,841

  161

  1,670

  2,739

  2

  1

  977

  Medical Boards
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what restrictions apply to a doctor who is a member of one of his Department's medical board panels in respect of giving a medical decision about a patient contrary to that of the medical board.

  Mr. Scott
  Medical boards are 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.
  156
  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 27 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what restrictions apply to a doctor who is a member of one of his Department's medical board panels in respect of giving a medical decision about a patient contrary to that of the medical board.

  A doctor who is a member of an Adjudicating Medical Authority (AMA) is there as an independent statutory authority and not as a representative of the Benefits Agency or any other organisation. If the medical board has two doctors, then although one of them is the Chairman, the Chairman does not have a casting vote. If the two doctors

  157
  disagree, the case is adjourned and referred to an AMA consisting of three members. The AMA decision will be a majority decision.

  Of course, a doctor is not permitted to be a member of an AMA if he is or may be affected directly by that case, or if he has taken any part in such case as a medical practitioner who
  158
  has regularly attended the customer (Social Security (Adjudication) Regulation 33). In effect doctors are not permitted to sit on a board which involves making decisions on patients they have attended regularly.

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Serbian Companies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), on 6 May,Official Report, column 204, if he will list the names and trading purposes of the 36 companies connected with Serbia or Montenegro known to his Department.

  Mr. Needham
  The list of 36 "persons connected with Serbia and Montenegro" referred to in my answers to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South is that attached to the open general supply licence (authorised recipients—Serbia and Montenegro) which came into force on 26 November 1992 and is available in the Library of the House. It is currently being reviewed, and I will write separately to both the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South when the review is complete.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the reactor or reactors of origin of plutonium exported to Japan from the United Kingdom since 1975.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since May 1979, the plutonium exported from the United Kingdom to Japan has arisen from the reprocessing of Japanese irradiated fuel by British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what ways plutonium from the Wylfa Magnox power station has been disposed of since his answer of 9 March 1983 to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet),Official Report, column 403.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 9 March 1983, arisings from Wylfa power station continue to contribute to the United Kingdom's civil holdings of plutonium under international safeguards. For the latest available data, I refer the hon. Member to the plutonium figures published on 4 February 1993, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  OFFER
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received the annual report of the Office of Electricity Regulation; and when he next plans to meet the Director-General of OFFER.

  Mr. Eggar
  I received a copy of this report on 21 May 1993. Department of Trade and Industry Ministers meet the Director General of Electricity Supply from time to time.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library the supplements to(a) his energy technology support unit's report ETSU-R-72 and (b) energy paper 60 on renewable energy.

  Mr. Eggar
  The supplement to the energy technology support unit's report ETSU-R-72 was placed in the House of Commons Library in January this year.
  160
  No supplement to "Energy Paper 60" on renewable energy is planned. However, the Government will publish a fuller renewable energy strategy review document later this year, in the light of the REAG report and the "Coal" White Paper.

  Pollutec 93
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department will provide to British companies to participate in the Pollutec 93 exhibition in Paris in October.

  Mr. Needham
  Unfortunately, my Department received no bid for this exhibition in its priorities exercise for the relevant programme year. Therefore, no offer of support could be made under the trade fairs support scheme.

  Subsequently, an approach was made to overseas promotions support branch by the Birmingham chamber of industry and commerce asking it to support the event. However, by then the provision for the scheme was fully committed making it impossible to offer assistance.

  Naturally, if funds become available at a later date my Department will review the position.

  ECGD
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the present staffing level of the Export Credit Guarantees Department; what is the projected level under the draft corporate plan; and what are the terms of reference of the external report commissioned on the ECGD.

  Mr. Needham
  The total staff employed in ECGD at present is 601. The staffing level projected by the draft corporate plan at April 1997 is 524.

  The terms of reference for the external review of ECGD are:
  "1. To consider and advise on the appropriate size and nature of the central services, in particular personnel, finance, IT, audit, management review, procurement and facilities management which ECGD needs to support its business effectively, taking account of:
  the constraints under which the Government Departments are required to operate, in particular with regard to Government accounting, and the personnel and other management policies of the Government;
  the current state of, and future strategy for ECGD's IT and other systems;
  its business objectives.
  2. To advise on the pace at which any changes should or could be made.

  (a) without regard to ECGD's current running cost cash limits;

  (b) with a view to containing any additional running cost expenditure within existing running cost limits; having regard to the ability of ECGD to place any surplus staff in other Government Departments or public sector organisations.

  3. To advise on the implementation of any recommendations, having regard to the need to maintain the integrity and viability of ECGD's business operations."

  Steel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding EC policy on steel prices.
  161
  Mr. Sainsbury
  EC policy on steel prices is governed by the provisions of the ECSC treaty. The pricing decisions of individual EC steel producers are a matter for the companies concerned.

  Trams
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to ensure there is a British capability for manufacturing trams.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department helps to enhance Britain's capability in light rail transit systems, which includes trams, in a number of ways, including support under the tracked-transport systems technology programme.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has undertaken into public attitudes to the British Nuclear Fuels plc nuclear waste substitution proposal and the storage of foreign nuclear waste in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  The possibility of substitution has been publicly acknowledged by Government since the reply by the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 May 1986,Official Report, column 500–01. Although advice has been received from the radioactive waste management advisory committee, the Government's consideration of the proposal by British Nuclear Fuels plc to return nuclear waste by substitution has not yet been completed. If approved, substitution would not lead to any net overseas radioactivity being retained in the United Kingdom.

  Inntrepreneur Scheme
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations he has respecting the inntrepreneur scheme operated by Grand Metropolitan Estates within the brewery industry; what have been the nature of such representations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will refer the practice of the inntrepreneur scheme operated by Grand Metropolitan Estates within the brewery industry to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Both I and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have received representations in the form of correspondence from Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. lessees, or on their behalf. Whilst the terms of individual leases are a commercial matter for discussion between landlord and tenant, Ministers have on a number of occasions urged. Grand Metropolitan, as managers of IEL, to deal sympathetically with IEL's tenants where changes were being introduced following the enactment of the Beer Orders or the Courage/Grand Metropolitan transaction. We continue to keep in touch with IEL to ensure that they are aware of the importance we attach to this. The complaints received by the Department do not appear to raise issues under the competition legislation. However, if the hon. Member has any specific examples of anti-competitive practices, it is open to him to raise these with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Recycling
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response has been received from European Commissioners and the German Economics Minister to his concerns over the impact of the German packaging regulations on the United Kingdom recycling industry; and what further action may be taken to alleviate the difficulties being experienced by some sectors.

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Commission responded on 17 May to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's letter about the German packaging regulations. The Commission shared the United Kingdom's concerns, hoped for progress on the proposed directive on packaging and packaging waste as a way of alleviating some aspects of the problem, and referred to a meeting of a group of experts to discuss the general question of packaging waste management on 4 June.

  Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment visited Bonn for discussions of the German packaging ordinance on 18 May. I hope that it will be possible for the German Economics Minister, Dr. Rexrodt, to respond positively to my right hon. Friend's letter in the light of those discussions.

  North Sea Licences
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the prevalence of legally binding joint application agreements of consortia for North sea licences requiring absolute unanimity among companies for any one consortium to withdraw from a licensing round; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Absolute unanimity was not a requirement among companies applying as a consortium for blocks offered in the 14th offshore licensing round. While no additional partners could be added after the consortium's application had been received, the withdrawal of original members, with the agreement of their partners, has been accepted.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when his Department issued its offer to consortia to withdraw from the 14th round for North sea oil licences following the abolition of petroleum revenue tax relief; and if the offer was sent to all companies involved in consortia;

  (2) how many days' notice were given by his Department for consultation between all members of consortia to decide whether to withdraw from their legally binding agreements and applications under the 14th round for North sea oil licences.

  Mr. Eggar
  A letter was sent on 26 March to the operator company leading each consortium which had applied for blocks offered in the 14th offshore licensing round. This letter was not sent until some two weeks after the proposed changes to petroleum revenue tax were announced in the Budget so that companies had a chance to examine their impact. It afforded companies an opportunity to reconsider their applications, and asked for a response by 2 April. Where companies asked for longer to respond, their request was granted.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many consortia are involved in bidding for the 14th round of North sea licences;
  163
  (2) how many companies, on average, take part in each consortium bidding for a licence for oil extraction in the North sea.

  Mr. Eggar
  Bids for the 14th offshore round licences were received from 63 consortia of up to five partners, and from 12 sole applicants. The average size of consortium was three companies.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the buildings currently owned or rented by his Department, together with(a) the estimated value, (b) the annual rent and (c) the annual maintenance cost of each building in the current financial year.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department occupies space in 250 buildings, the majority on the common user estate operated by Property Holdings. The information requested on individual buildings cannot be given on grounds of disproportionate cost and commercial sensitivity. Total estimates for the rent and maintenance costs of properties on the common user estate are published in the supply estimates. On DTI's departmental estate, the cost of rent will be about £8·4 million and for maintenance £4·9 million in 1993–94.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated amount to be spent in 1993–94 in rent and other associated costs with the offices of his Department in Victoria street, London.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: My Department's accommodation in Victoria street will cost some £19·7 million in 1993–94, covering rent, maintenance and the contribution in lieu of rates.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) Crown and (b) sub post offices are currently used by Her Majesty's Government for payment of the main benefits; and what is the minimum number in each category which he expects to be capable of discharging this function for the next five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As at 27 December 1992 there were 970 Crown post offices and 18,974 sub-post offices, all of which are used for the payment of benefits. The number of Crown offices is expected to decrease over the next five years in line with the Post Office's policy to convert them to agency offices. The number of sub-post offices is expected to remain broadly similar, although closures occur from time to time as a result of local circumstances.

  Oil and Gas Division (Relocation)
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the first civil servants from his Department's oil and gas division to be relocated to Aberdeen will be in place.

  Mr. Eggar
  The first relocations are planned for the autumn of this year.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultation on the law of insolvency.
  164
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Currently there is no general consultation in progress on insolvency law. Officials in the insolvency service continue to monitor its operation.

  Relocation and Amalgamations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department plans to relocate part of its petroleum engineering directorate to Aberdeen. We are also considering options for relocating other parts of the Department but as yet we have no firm plans.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 289, if he will publish full details of his Department's study into the use of CFCs as solvents which highlighted a number of implications for the dry cleaning sector of the early phasing out of CFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The results of the study, "The Use of CFC 113 and 1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane as Solvents in UK Industry" commissioned by my Department from Touche Ross management consultants, were publicised at a conference hosted by DTI in October 1992 at the national motor cycle museum, Birmingham. Copies of the full report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and are available to the public from the DTI Library and information centre.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have been held with the packaging industry as to their views on the prospect of increased incineration of household waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry have had regular discussions with representatives of the packaging industry about various aspects of the disposal of domestic and commercial waste. These discussions will continue and will take into account the findings of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report on incineration as a waste disposal option.

  Regional Preferential Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage change in the level of regional preferential assistance by standardised United Kingdom region between 1978–79 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Apart from minor exceptions regional preferential assistance is restricted to the assisted areas of the United Kingdom. Between 1978–79 to 1984–85 the assisted area map was updated three times. With the exception of Northern Ireland there were substantial changes to the coverage of individual standard regions. Changes in the level of regional preferential assistance to individual regions between 1978–79 and 1992–93 are therefore influenced by the difference in coverage.
  165
  In 1978–79 two thirds of regional preferential assistance in Great Britain was accounted for by expenditure on regional development grants. RDGs were abolished in 1988 although residual expenditure is still continuing. In 1992–93 expenditure on RDG accounted for less than 10 per cent. of regional preferential assistance in Great Britain.

  Percentage change in the level of regional preferential assistance 1978–79 to 1992–93

  United Kingdom region

  Percentage change

  Northern

  -69

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  -63

  East Midlands

  -65

  West Midlands

  1+5,300

  South West

  -14

  North West

  -67

  Wales

  2+7

  Scotland

  2-34

  Northern Ireland

  2+6

  1 In 1978–79 the Oswestry TTWA only had assisted area status.

  2 Provisional.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full-time in work relating to market testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost to date of my Department's market-testing programme is some £1,050,000. This covers direct staff costs and consultants brought in to add private sector skills. Future costs cannot be gauged at this time as details of the forward programme are not yet available. Eight staff are engaged full time on market testing.

  Firms of consultants which have been used in connection with the market testing programme are: Capita, Coopers and Lybrand, Ernst and Young, Grosvenor consultancy services, KPMG Peat Marwick, Lamb Associates, MM Consulting, PA Consulting, Pannell Kerr Forster Associates, Price Waterhouse, Shreeveport, SRU Ltd., and Stoker Associates. They were all selected by competitive tender.

  Fraudulent Trading
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases of fraudulent trading have been investigated in each of the last three years; how many of these cases were brought to court; how many were not successful after(a) a full trial and (b) after dismissal by the judge before the defence case was heard in court; and what was the full cost of each investigation brought to court.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In 1990–91, 44 cases were referred to my Department for investigation with a view to prosecution for fraudulent trading; of these, 39 have been investigated or are still under investigation; the comparable figures for 1991–92 are 60 and 50, and for 1992–93 are 48 and 28. Nine of the cases where investigation began in 1990–91 have come to trial and convictions were obtained in four of these cases. In three 166
  cases, the defendant was found not guilty at the conclusion of the trial and in one case the judge ordered the charges to be left on file. In the remaining case the trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. None of the other cases for all three years has come to trial yet.

  It is not possible, within the limit imposed on costs, to provide the information requested on the full cost of each investigation brought to court.

  Exporting Countries
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the 10 countries that earned the most money from exports in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is in the table.

  Top Ten Leading Exporters1 1979–92

  Year

  US$ billion

  1979

  1 USA

  182

  2 Germany

  172

  3 Japan

  103

  4 France

  98

  5 United Kingdom

  91

  6 Italy

  72

  7 Netherlands

  64

  8 Saudi Arabia

  59

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  56

  10 Canada

  56

  1980

  1 USA

  221

  2 Germany

  192

  3 Japan

  130

  4 United Kingdom

  115

  5 France

  111

  6 Saudi Arabia

  102

  7 Italy

  78

  8 Netherlands

  74

  9 Canada

  65

  10 Belgium/Luxembourg

  64

  1981

  1 USA

  234

  2 Germany

  175

  3 Japan

  152

  4 Saudi Arabia

  113

  5 United Kingdom

  103

  6 France

  101

  7 Italy

  76

  8 Canada

  71

  9 Netherlands

  68

  10 Belgium/Luxembourg

  55

  1982

  1 USA

  212

  2 Germany

  175

  3 Japan

  138

  4 United Kingdom

  97

  5 France

  92

  6 Saudi Arabia

  76

  7 Italy

  73

  8 Canada

  68

  9 Netherlands

  66

  10 Belgium/Luxembourg

  52

  1983

  1 USA

  201

  2 Germany

  169

  3 Japan

  147

  4 United Kingdom

  92

  5 France

  91

  6 Canada

  74

  7 Italy

  73

  8 Netherlands

  65

  167

  Year

  US$ billion

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  52

  10 Saudi Arabia

  46

  1984

  1 USA

  218

  2 Germany

  171

  3 Japan

  170

  4 United Kingdom

  94

  5 France

  93

  6 Canada

  85

  7 Italy

  73

  8 Netherlands

  66

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  52

  10 USSR

  41

  1985

  1 USA

  213

  2 Germany

  183

  3 Japan

  177

  4 United Kingdom

  102

  5 France

  97

  6 Canada

  87

  7 Italy

  78

  8 Netherlands

  68

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  54

  10 USSR

  39

  1986

  1 Germany

  242

  2 USA

  217

  3 Japan

  211

  4 France

  119

  5 United Kingdom

  107

  6 Italy

  97

  7 Canada

  87

  8 Netherlands

  81

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  69

  10 Taiwan

  40

  1987

  1 Germany

  294

  2 USA

  253

  3 Japan

  231

  4 France

  143

  5 United Kingdom

  130

  6 Italy

  116

  7 Canada

  94

  8 Netherlands

  93

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  83

  10 Taiwan

  54

  1988

  1 Germany

  323

  2 USA

  320

  3 Japan

  265

  4 France

  162

  5 United Kingdom

  145

  6 Italy

  128

  7 Canada

  112

  8 Netherlands

  103

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  92

  10 Hong Kong2

  63

  1989

  1 USA

  364

  2 Germany

  341

  3 Japan

  275

  4 France

  173

  5 United Kingdom

  153

  6 Italy

  149

  7 Canada

  116

  8 Netherlands

  108

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  100

  10 Hong Kong2

  73

  1990

  1 Germany

  398

  2 USA

  393

  168

  Year

  US$ billion

  3 Japan

  287

  4 France

  210

  5 United Kingdom

  185

  6 Italy

  181

  7 Netherlands

  131

  8 Canada

  128

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  118

  10 Hong Kong2

  82

  1991

  1 USA

  422

  2 Germany3

  403

  3 Japan

  315

  4 France

  213

  5 United Kingdom

  185

  6 Italy

  176

  7 Netherlands

  133

  8 Canada

  127

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  118

  10 Hong Kong2

  99

  1992

  1 USA

  447

  2 Germany3

  429

  3 Japan

  340

  4 France

  236

  5 United Kingdom

  191

  6 Italy

  175

  7 Netherlands

  140

  8 Canada

  135

  9 Belgium/Luxembourg

  123

  10 Hong Kong2

  118

  Notes:

  1 Total visible exports.

  2 Includes re-exports.

  3 1991 onwards includes Eastern Germany.

  Source:

  OECD Series A.

  IMF Direction of Trade.

  Gatt Focus.

  Marathon Oil
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make public the environmental assessment made by Marathon Oil as part of its bid for blocks in St. George's channel included in the 14th licensing round.

  Mr. Eggar
  The environmental information provided by applicants for licences is submitted to my Department on a commercially confidential basis, as is the case with all other material supplied in support of applications.

  Applicants are required to provide evidence only of their environmental policies. In addition, applicants for sensitive blocks offered in the current licensing round were encouraged to acquaint themselves with the environmental sensitivities of the areas concerned before making their application.

  Sea Mammal Research Unit
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to require offshore operators to submit detailed plans of seismic work to the sea mammal research unit for approval before petroleum exploration work can begin.

  Mr. Eggar
  Where licences are awarded for blocks near to areas of cetacean activity in all or part of the year, operators are asked to consult the sea mammal research
  169
  unit before seismic activity commences. They are also asked to use the lowest feasible energy levels for seismic surveys in these areas.

  Coal Stocks
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has held about the level of coal stocks necessary under the Electricity Act 1989 for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is currently reviewing with the electricity generators, and with the National Grid Company which advises the President in such matters, the basis of the existing directions under sections 34 and 35 of the Electricity Act 1989 with a view to putting in place arrangements which reflects current security needs. The Government will announce in due course any revised arrangements for 1993–94 and subsequent years.

  Collieries
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what finance is available to assist in funding consultancy studies for management and employee buyouts of British Coal collieries; how applications for such finance should be made; how many applications have been made; and how many, and of what value, have been successful.

  Mr. Eggar
  A fund of £1 million is available to assist management and employee buyout teams in meeting the costs of employing consultants and other professional advisers. Assistance will be at a maximum rate of 50 per cent. of the eligible costs, including VAT. Support for work in preparing bids for any one of the pits which British Coal is offering for licensing will not exceed £80,000. Should more than one team bid for a particular pit, the limit will be apportioned equally between the teams.

  Applications for such assistance should be made to the coal privatisation unit, room 3.4.21, 1 Palace street, London SW1E 5HE.

  Since the scheme was announced on 27 May my Department has received a number of inquiries, however, at this early stage no formal applications have been made.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the advisory committee on the safety of nuclear installations will now examine the computer systems at THORP and the Sellafield vitrification plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am advised that the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on the safety of nuclear installations has no plans at present to examine these systems which satisfy the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the advisory committee on the safety of nuclear installations and intermediate-level waste storage at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. A report by the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on the safety of nuclear installations on the accumulation of radioactive waste was published in July 1992.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much coal has been imported so far in the current financial year; and how much he expects to be imported in the full year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the volume of coal imports is published monthly in "Energy Trends", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Since the completion of the single market at the end of 1992, total imports are having to be estimated while a new system is installed for providing data on imports from and through EC countries: the latest available estimate is for March 1993. I have not made an estimate of coal imports for 1993–94.

  Fiddlers Ferry Power Station
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the projected working life of the Fiddlers Ferry power station.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for PowerGen plc.

  RECHAR
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list those local authorities in the Yorkshire region which have received RECHAR money over the past two years giving the amount given to each authority;

  (2) what is the value of RECHAR money allocated to the regions over the past two years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Eleven United Kingdom RECHAR programmes which were approved in February 1992 and for which grant has to be committed by 31 December 1993. The allocations to these programmes, in 1992 prices are as follows:

  (millions of ecu)

  South Yorkshire

  34·0

  South Wales

  31·2

  East Midlands

  30·6

  Tyne and Wear, South East Northumberland

  17·2

  Mid Yorkshire

  16·5

  Eastern Scotland

  16·0

  Durham and Cleveland

  12·2

  Lancashire

  8·3

  South Staffordshire

  5·0

  North Warwickshire

  4·0

  Western Scotland

  4·0

  TOTAL

  179·0

  It is for each RECHAR programme committee to decide on grants for applications, including those from local authorities. Payments made by the end of May 1993 to local authorities in Yorkshire were, in pounds sterling:

  £

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley MBC

  21,000

  Doncaster MBC

  209,000

  Rotherham MBC

  423,000

  Sheffield MDC

  92,000

  171

  £

  Mid Yorkshire

  Wakefield MDC

  436,000

  Kirklees MBC

  100,000

  TOTAL

  1,281,000

  Trade (Croatia)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 123, when information regarding trade with Croatia was first separately identified from the rest of former Yugoslavia; how permissible trade with Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina was distinguished from prohibited trade with Serbia and Montenegro prior to the collection of separate figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: United Kingdom trade with Serbia and Montenegro was separately identified from trade with the other former Yugoslav republics in the collection of trade statistics since 1 July 1992. However, in line with normal practice to make major changes to the statistical systems only at the start of a calendar year, separate figures were not published until January 1993. Since then, separate figures have been published for Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro and Macedonia.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to dispatch his Department's new assisted areas map to the European Commission; and when he expects to secure its approval.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: Proposals should be submitted to the European Commission shortly. I cannot anticipate how long they will take to complete their consideration.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the dates being used in the statistical analysis of unemployment that informs his Department's review of the assisted areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: As the consultation document made clear, unemployment measures are the major criteria for the review. A number of relevant unemployment statistical series are being taken into account.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current situation at the 12 reprieved collieries; what market testing has been carried out at these collieries; and what is the success of such operations.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 May 1993]: Decisions about individual collieries are a matter for British Coal. I understand the corporation will be maintaining these collieries in production while they carry out market testing. Negotiations for additional tonnages are continuing between British Coal and the generators.

  Benefits (Automated Credit Transfer)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each of the organisations which have written to him on the subject of automated credit transfer and the implications for the viability of sub post offices; and if he will indicate which have been(a) favourable and (b) unfavourable.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 26 May 1993]: We have recently received a substantial number of representations about automated credit transfer (ACT), including letters from a wide variety of organisations, from right hon. and hon. Members and from a number of individuals. These letters have argued in favour of the continued availability of the option of using post offices for the payment of benefits.

  THORP
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. make available under section 13A of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to those involved in the statutory consultation process in relation to the opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield the report on the economics of the plant commissioned from Touche Ross.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 May 1993]: Under section 13A of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, copies of all applications made to the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are made publicly available, except where material is withheld for reasons of national security and commercial confidentiality. No report by Touche Ross has been submitted to HMIP by British Nuclear Fuels plc as part of an application under the Act. The question of making any such report on the economics of THORP available is a matter for the company.

  Car Auctions
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to require those organising car auctions to keep records of those selling and buying motor vehicles.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 26 May 1993]: No. The costs of introducing and policing a compulsory system of recording details of buyers and sellers would not represent value for money and would far outweigh any perceived consumer benefits.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the standing charges per quarter and the unit charge in pence/kWh for electricity prices as a weighted average of the 12 regional companies for each year since 1991–92; what each figure represents as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year's figure; what were the changes in the retail prices index over the same period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 May 1993]: Average standing charges in England and Wales in £/quarter and unit rates in P/kwh for standard domestic tariffs are tabulated.
  173

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  Average Standing Charge (£'s)

  10·41

  10·55

  10·56

  Average Unit Rate (pence)

  7·55

  7·71

  7·53

  RPI (per cent.)

  4·3

  1·3

  Unit rates increased by 2·1 per cent. in nominal terms from 1 April 1992 but decreased by 2·3 per cent. in nominal terms from 1 April 1993. On the same basis standing charges increased by 1·3 per cent. and 0·1 per cent. respectively over the same periods. These figures exclude discounts associated with payment methods.

  The prices charged by RECs, including standing charges and unit charges, are limited by price control formulae, which are overseen by the Director General of Electricity Supply (DGES). Further information is available from the DGES.

  Package Travel
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he received objecting to his 1992 proposal to license package travel companies; and from whom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: A proposal for a licensing system for all organisers of packages was included in the Department of Trade and Industry consultation paper on the implementation of the package travel directive published in July 1991. Of those who responded to this paper, 15 registered a specific objection to a licensing system. These respondents were virtually all representatives of domestic tourist interests.

  Telephone Charges
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the local telephone call charges for three minutes at peak times for each member state of the European Community as charged by the principal telephone company or service in each company.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: The call charges for three minute local calls in each of the European Community countries are set out in the table:

  Local call charges as at 1 January 1993 (ECU)

  Country

  Peak rate 3 minutes

  Cheap rate 3 minutes

  Belgium

  0·15

  0·15

  Denmark

  0·16

  0·11

  Germany

  0·12

  0·12

  Greece

  0·03

  0·03

  France

  0·11

  0·11

  Ireland

  0·16

  0·16

  Italy

  0·16

  0·16

  Luxembourg

  0·12

  0·12

  Netherlands

  0·07

  0·07

  Portugal

  0·06

  0·06

  Spain

  0·07

  0·07

  United Kingdom (British Telecom)

  0·25

  0·06

  Average

  0·12

  0·10

  174
  Source: Commission Communication, "Towards Cost Orientation and the Adjustment of Pricing Structures", updated 1 February 1993.

  Note: Due to variations in charge measuring intervals and definitions of "local" calling zones, these data are not strictly comparable.

  Rating Revaluation
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate his Department has made of the likely effect of the 1995 rating revaluation on industry in the west midlands.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department has carried out no such study, which would in any case be premature.

  Leyland-Daf
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to assist those companies owed moneys by the Leyland-Daf Company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Outstanding debt is a matter for the suppliers and the receivers.

  EC Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of EC grants intended for the United Kingdom has been claimed in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  As EC grants made under the structural funds are allocated on a multiannual basis, no annual figures for grants actually claimed are available. However, of the structural funds allocated to the United Kingdom for the period 1989–93, approximately 80 per cent. have been committed to projects. The remaining 20 per cent. is expected to be committed before the end of the year. Since there is no allocation specific to the United Kingdom in respect of other EC expenditure it is not possible to say what percentage of grants intended for the United Kingdom has been claimed.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take to ensure that all EC grants intended for the United Kingdom are claimed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  Government Departments give detailed information to interested bodies and individuals on EC grants and moneys which may be available. In the case of structural funds, the DTI monitors commitments and experience on a detailed and regular basis. This gives early warning of the possibility of any allocations not being taken up so that the necessary action can be taken.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
Viscount Waverley —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Bosnia-Herzegovina
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will liaise with the Government of the United States of America to bring an end to the fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we remain in closest contact with the United States Government and with our other allies in an effort to achieve peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina. On 22nd May foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and Spain agreed the Joint Action Programme on the next steps as part of the process of achieving a lasting settlement.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply but do the Government accept that the Serbs have acquired 70 per cent. of land belonging to other people by brute force, ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of the Moslems? That is a disgrace to humanity. The only hope is that the United Kingdom, acting in liaison with the United States of America, will hold urgent talks designed to end the violence in Bosnia and to guarantee that the United Nations will survive, as it is at risk at present.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no one would like more than I to be able to ensure that the consultations, of which there is an extensive network taking place all the time, could bring to an end the slaughter and the terrible happenings in Bosnia-Herzegovina. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will, in the Foreign Affairs Council held tomorrow, in the North Atlantic Council held on Thursday and in the meeting of the North Atlantic Co-operation Committee this week, do everything possible to find a way forward. He is in regular touch with Secretary Christopher and with the noble Lord, Lord Owen. He was in touch with both of them this weekend. We can only hope that a way can now be found to implement in full Security Council Resolution No. 836.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, when did the Military Staffs Committee of the UN, as set up in the original charter, last meet? Who is the British representative on the Military Staffs Committee?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, much as I like to try to please the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I am afraid that without notice I cannot answer that
540
question specifically. However, in my discussions last week in New York with the Under-Secretary at the United Nations who is responsible for peace-keeping, I formed the view that the UN is well aware of just how difficult it will be to implement Security Council Resolution No. 836. We should all be aware of that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that so far the UN policy of safe havens in Bosnia is a tragic failure as Moslems continue to be slaughtered? When will additional UN troops be sent to Bosnia to safeguard the safe havens? Where will those UN troops come from?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution No. 836 only last Friday, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is asking me to make announcements on events that have not yet happened. The safe areas covered by this Security Council Resolution are different from the safe havens of Northern Iraq which were set up two years ago. All those safe areas are under serious threat. The humanitarian conditions are appalling and the situation is very difficult as the Serbs are not allowing UN monitors or relief convoys into Gorazde and the surrounding areas in particular. It will be for the Secretary General of the United Nations to invite the extra troop contributions and those will be in addition to our contribution. We have already made the largest troop contribution, with 2,400 troops in Bosnia. We shall not add to that contribution.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that humanitarian aid is still the most important aspect of the role Britain plays and that Britain is leading the world in this field?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare that we have indeed led the field. Not only has the UK contributed more troops but we have more directly-employed people than any other nation working on the ground in Bosnia. In the work that we have been doing we have involved not only logisticians but also technicians, whom we very much want to put to work; for instance, trying to restore the water supply in Srebrenica. We have nothing but praise for those who work there, but other nations must also contribute. Britain alone cannot continue to carry those areas with the French, who are the other major contributors.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while I acknowledge the tremendous efforts made by the British—which are greater than those made by any other country—in this terrible situation, does the noble Baroness agree that we must make very sure that the vile activities taking place in that part of the former Yugoslavia must not be rewarded with success? Does she agree, therefore, that Britain and the United States of America should work together to persuade the entire free world to make a contribution to ensure that foul aggression will never be rewarded?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that foul

541
aggression should never be rewarded. However, there is more to be done than outside nations can do. Because Resolution 836, which has now been adopted, goes a long way, two further elements are needed apart from any outside help which may be given. One is local agreements for implementation, with the co-operation of the parties involved, because there is no question of UN forces fighting their way in. That just would not work. Secondly, there is a need for reinforcement of the United Nation's presence. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be urging our partners to make a contribution to that presence at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8th June.

Law Society: Eligibility for Legal Aid
2.44 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Law Society is eligible for legal aid in respect of its recent applications for judicial review of decisions of the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): No, my Lords. Legal aid is available to individuals who qualify financially and whose case satisfies the legal aid merits test. It is not available to bodies corporate.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I can barely hide my disappointment at that reply. In view of the heart-rending accounts which have been heard by your Lordships among others of the suffering of the legal profession, will the noble and learned Lord consider the criteria and whether an exception can be made in this case? Failing that, will he consider whether an ex-gratia payment can be made to the Law Society to assist it with its costs in this case?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the second of the applications to which the Question refers is pending and I await judgment. Therefore, it would be extremely unwise of me to say anything which would comment on the merits of that case, save to say that questions of cost in the particular case are for the court.
As regards extending legal aid to cover applications of this kind, I certainly consider that that would not rank very high among the priorities for extending legal aid.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware of the fact that the Law Society needs no assistance or prompting in claims for legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the Law Society is well able to manage its own affairs in matters in which the interests of its clients are at stake.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not a wonderful example of the way in which we behave in this country that such litigation can take place and yet all the
542
members of the Law Society in your Lordships' House still have the highest regard and greatest fondness for the noble and learned Lord?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the second part of that Question. It would be unwise of me to comment on the first part.

Housing: Private Rented Sector
2.47 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to increase the stock of housing for rent; and how large a private rented sector they wish to see.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, our plans to increase the private rented sector are based on making renting a more attractive option for landlords. We have already taken a number of steps to expand the private rented sector, including the deregulation measures in the Housing Act 1988 and a number of specific initiatives to tackle the problem of empty properties. Our aim is that that sector will make a significant additional contribution to the total housing supply.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, although I thank the noble Lord for the first part of his reply, which is very welcome, perhaps I may press him on the second part of my Question, which I do not think he addressed. How large a private rented sector do the Government wish to see, has the department any estimates and, if not, why not?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the current proportion of the housing supply which is devoted to privately rented property is some 8 per cent. We do not set a target for the private rented sector. All that I can tell the noble Lord is that we wish it to increase.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at present in the United Kingdom there are more than 1.5 million houses which are unfit for human habitation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord may have muddled the statistics covering houses which are unfit for human habitation with those relating to houses which are currently unlet. Very often individuals in the private sector choose not to let their houses. The purpose of government policy is to find out why that should be so. I agree with the noble Lord that those houses could potentially be let to tenants. That is the direction which housing policy will take.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House the figures regarding Government policy on provision of accommodation above shops?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness that some £25 million is being made available to local authorities over three years

543
under the flats-over-shops scheme to bring flats over shops back into residential use. It is a valuable initiative which is showing some signs of success.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the number of properties? That is the question that I asked.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness how many properties the scheme has affected yet. We have the total sum of £25 million which has not yet been fully subscribed to.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is it possible for the Government to evolve a scheme to assist people when the breadwinner suddenly becomes unemployed and cannot meet the weekly payments on the house that is being purchased? Such a scheme would save people from being turfed out of their houses. It would also enable them to seek work in order to pay off what they owed the Government. They would not therefore lose their house.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are straying from the Question on the Order Paper. However, where applicable, housing benefit applies.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of the population of this country, unlike this House, cannot work without sleep and that therefore a greater provision of low-cost rented housing could have the effect of reducing the burden of unemployment on the public sector borrowing requirement?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl made an intelligent point and asked an intelligent question. I am not sure that I understood the pertinence of it. The point is that the Government are interested in increasing the overall supply of the private rented sector; and that will benefit everyone in this country.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister referred to empty property. Will he confirm that nearly 14 per cent. of government-owned property is currently standing empty?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is true that a substantial amount of government property is currently empty. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that my honourable friend the Minister for Housing has a special committee looking at precisely that problem.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is it true that figures with regard to the demand for rented accommodation are now being sought by the Government from local authorities? If that is so, can the total figure be released to the nation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a considerable amount of research ongoing within the department at present about future policy on the private rented sector and on the other rented sector. When we have collated all the information, the Government will make an announcement as to the direction of new policy.

Business
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to make a short business statement.
As your Lordships will be aware, a considerable number of your Lordships have indicated your wish to speak in the Second Reading debate today and tomorrow. In the light of that, and following discussions between the usual channels, it is now proposed that the House should sit tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. rather than at 2.30 p.m. Starred Questions will take their usual place after prayers and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will resume the Second Reading Debate thereafter.
I hope that that proposal, which will give an extra three hours of debate tomorrow, will enable us to conclude each day of the debate at a relatively reasonable hour.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, without wishing to delay the House, will the noble Lord the Chief Whip tell us the criterion for the original two-day debate? Quite clearly, with 130 speakers there is scope for a three-day debate, especially bearing in mind that I made representation to the Leader of the House before the Recess, and indeed during the Recess.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very good question. Discussions were held on an all-party basis through the usual channels before there were anything like 130 names on the list. I remind your Lordships' House that we have had the Whitsun Recess in the interim. Thus discussion of the business management affairs and the party Whips which had to be sent out were on the basis that there were under 100 speakers. It may also be worth remembering that many noble Lords will have made their plans to speak in the debate on the basis of it being a two-day debate. They might be very severely inconvenienced if they have to abandon commitments made for the Wednesday.
In closing, perhaps I may suggest that, by starting at the earlier hour proposed tomorrow morning, we would effectively achieve the same result as though we had sat on a third day, the Wednesday, up to 6 p.m.

Dunham Bridge (Amendment) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
2.56 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Seldom can an eight-clause Bill have stimulated quite so much controversy, quite so many column inches or quite such intense parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill has had an exhaustive examination by another place: indeed, even more exhaustive than the

545
1972 Bill. During the course of this examination it has grown from three to eight clauses. It has been sent to your Lordships' House with the endorsement of a large majority. And now, a year after the Bill was introduced, it comes finally to your Lordships' House. The number of speakers in today's debate—and tomorrow's—is sufficient testimony of the interest which these issues raise also among your Lordships. Never before, I think, have so many of your Lordships indicated your wish to speak in a Second Reading debate.
In rising to invite your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill, I cannot hope now in my speech to deal with all the questions which have arisen during this lengthy examination—some germane to the Bill, some less so. There will be ample opportunity to address these in the subsequent stages of your Lordships' scrutiny of the Bill, to which I look forward in the confident expectation that they will be marked more by light than heat, and that they will accord fully with the conventions appropriate to our Chamber. What, however, I would like to do today, at the start of our debates, is to try to set those issues in a broad framework, to explain the context of the treaty agreed at Maastricht, and the Bill, and to try to clarify what both mean to this House, to this country, and to the Community as a whole.
Much has happened since December 1991 when the negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty were brought to a successful conclusion—and since the House by a majority of over two to one endorsed that conclusion. The process of ratification of the treaty has proceeded in other member states, and has stimulated in many of them a vigorous debate on the nature of the Community. The EFTA countries have taken steps towards a closer relationship with the Community, and negotiations have started for four of them to become full members. At the same time Western Europe has entered a considerable recession; there has been a difficult period of turbulence on the currency markets and we, along with others, have suspended our membership of the ERM. Finally, the Community has been faced with an international crisis close to home in the former Yugoslavia.
Those developments have inevitably coloured the debate on the treaty itself and on the Bill. They bear out the firm and successful work by the Government, in negotiating the treaty, to remove the federalising and centralising intent of the earlier drafts. Instead, the treaty marked the start of a move towards a new framework for common action and co-operation between the member states—promoting action at a Community level only where it is justified, building new mechanisms for intergovernmental co-operation in other fields, and making more effective the implementation of Community policies.
Your Lordships will be aware that, broadly speaking, the treaty establishes three separate "pillars", or areas of action: first, action on a Community basis—involving, in broadly similar roles as they now have, the institutions of the Community in the decision-making processes which have been established under the Treaty of Rome, the ECSC and
546
Euratom Treaties and the Single European Act. Secondly, action at an intergovernmental level on a common foreign and security policy. This means that the member states will co-operate directly together. The Commission will be present, but without its sole right of initiative and the primary executive role which are a feature of Community action. It is sensible for it to be there since, for example, common foreign and security policy measures may involve sanctions on third countries which bear on economic action for the Community. Other institutions of the Community—such as the Court of Justice—will have no role at all in the common foreign and security policy. Thirdly, action on a similar intergovernmental basis on justice and home affairs.
It is a significant step forward that the treaty reflects the need for this different approach in different policy areas, and specifically recognises that intergovernmental co-operation can, in appropriate circumstances, be just as effective, and just as "European", as Community action under the Treaty of Rome. The treaty establishes the principle that Community action is not a good thing for its own sake. There are areas such as the single market where it is appropriate—and Britain will participate wholeheartedly in these. But there are other areas where we do not need common rules, and common European legislation.
The treaty contains important new safeguards. Article 3b incorporates in Community law the principle of subsidiarity: that the Community is to act only where member states cannot achieve the desired result alone. During the UK presidency significant progress was made in elaborating that principle. At the Edinburgh Council formal procedures and guidelines were agreed for the application of subsidiarity across the whole range of Community action. The Commission has made a start on the examination of legislation which, as it were, fails the subsidiarity test. It has already identified some examples of legislation which should be dropped, and it will present a comprehensive report to the Council this December. There has, in addition, been a dramatic reduction in the volume of new Community legislation in recent months. In 1992 the Commission proposed some 77 pieces of legislation, compared with 145 proposals in 1991. Subsidiarity is already having its effect.
The treaty also strengthens the legal framework of Community action. On the one hand it clarifies the limits of action under the Treaty of Rome. For example, the new articles on culture, health and education expressly exclude the Community from taking "harmonising measures". On the other hand, it strengthens the application of the rule of law and the accountability of Community institutions. The treaty gives the Court new powers to fine member states which fail to comply with its judgments. Similarly, the role of the Court of Auditors, the watchdog of how the Community spends taxpayers' money, is to be enhanced, and the Commission itself will be subjected to greater democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament.
An important element in the Maastricht negotiations was the desire among some member states for a

547
single European currency. But the Government were clear that it would be wrong to commit Britain to joining such a currency. Under the Maastricht Treaty we have the right to decide not just when but whether we wish to join any single currency. We have a full say in how the steps towards such a currency are taken, but we retain our freedom of action.
The treaty makes clear, in terms, that British monetary policy remains a national matter until and unless we decide otherwise. The treaty does not oblige us to rejoin the ERM unless we wish to. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made clear that the conditions for doing so do not at present exist.
The UK also opted out of the social chapter. Our partners wanted far reaching extensions of what is called the "social dimension" of the Community. We disagreed. The social chapter is thus an agreement of the 11. We believe that, far from helping workers' rights, the social chapter would endanger their jobs. We want a high productivity, high wage economy with good working conditions. But that cannot be legislated into being. It has to be earned—company by company, factory by factory. The social chapter loads costs on to employers and will cost jobs for employees.
Last week our partners were able to pass legislation by qualified majority voting—the working time directive—which would change member states' working practices, and Britain's particularly so. I would underline that this was done under the Single European Act, which this House agreed in 1986. We were able last week to remove the worst features of the working time directive, and so preserved the simple individual liberty for those who wished to work overtime to provide a better standard of living for their families. But such working practices are a matter for each individual member state, not the Community. Nor does the article on which this directive was based give adequate powers for its adoption; the article is about health and safety, and the directive goes far beyond that. We will therefore fight the case in principle in the Court. We were certainly not prepared to see a massive extension of such proposals. Indeed, under Maastricht, as we have signed it, with subsidiarity and the agreement of the 11 it will be easier—not easy but easier—to argue that such measures should not in future be a Community matter.
It may be helpful if at this stage I elaborate a little on what the Bill actually does. The Bill is required because, in order to ratify the treaty, we need to change our domestic legislation so as to give effect in our law to certain parts of the treaty. It is important to keep clear the distinction between the treaty and the Bill—which may seem obvious—but there have been claims, for example, that an amendment to the Bill meant that the treaty was amended, which is not the case.
At the heart of the Bill lies Clause 1(1). This amends the European Communities Act 1972 to add to the treaties listed there the parts of the Maastricht Treaty which relate to the first pillar, with the exception of the
548
protocol on social policy which was omitted following the agreement of another place to an amendment introduced at Report stage.
Clause 1(1) does not make provision for the second and third pillars of the treaty, because those pillars —and this is a rather technical but important distinction—do not give rise to Community rights and obligations. Clause 1(2) of the Bill satisfies the requirement in the 1978 European Parliamentary Elections Act that treaties increasing the powers of the European Parliament should be approved by an Act of Parliament before UK ratification. Clause 1(2) gives a global approval to all three pillars of the treaty, and to all the protocols.
Clause 2 meets the Government's commitment not to seek a move to a single currency and single monetary policy—stage III of economic and monetary union—without the agreement of Parliament. It requires such a move to be approved in advance by an Act of Parliament and also that the Government should report to Parliament on various aspects of economic co-ordination and convergence.
Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were all introduced during the Bill's passage in another place. Clauses 3 and 5 place various requirements on the Government and the Governor of the Bank of England to report to Parliament—including this House—about aspects of economic policy and economic and monetary union. Clause 4 specifies the economic information that the UK should submit to the Commission. Clause 6 means that the UK's representatives on the committee of the regions will have to be elected members of a local authority at the time of their nomination. Finally, Clause 7 requires each House of Parliament to come to a resolution on a notion on the social protocol before the Act comes into force.
We in this country are rightly proud of our parliamentary democracy and loath to see it diminished. Some have suggested that the effect of this Bill is to bring about a substantial transfer of sovereignty to the Community. But in most respects this Bill is less far-reaching than that enabling us to ratify the Single European Act, and certainly less far-reaching than the 1972 Act itself. As I have sought to show, the treaty is about improving the structures for decision-making and about making the Community work more effectively.
Against this background I should like to pick out briefly one issue which stimulated considerable debate in another place and to which I anticipate your Lordships may wish to return. That is the question of a referendum. I am a firm opponent of referenda. I do not believe that they—and the single issue political debates which they involve—have a place in our system of parliamentary democracy. Nor do I think that the practical questions involved in mounting a referendum have satisfactorily been addressed: it is often difficult to isolate the question on which the views of the electorate are sought from other pressing political issues.
Where I think the House will wish to be careful in examining the question—as we doubtless shall in our debates on the Bill—is in distinguishing between principle and opportunity. The treaty is important;

549
but there are a number of other issues on which strong views are held, and on which a case could and would be made for a referendum—the death penalty; the position of the Church of England; even the role of your Lordships' House. Though I certainly respect the views of those who are consistent advocates of referenda, I cannot say that I am any more persuaded of the case for one on this treaty than on any other question. Those who find the arguments attractive in this case might, I suggest, inadvertently contribute to undermining the very system of parliamentary democracy which it is their professed aim to protect.
We should not, in our discussions about the detail of the treaty and the Bill, lose sight of the wider picture. The Community has helped to ensure over 40 years of peace in Western Europe following two horrific wars in the previous 40 years. It has helped to consolidate the transition of Spain, Portugal and Greece from totalitarianism to democracy. It has provided an example to the countries of Eastern Europe of how liberal, market-based democratic nations can voluntarily work together, highlighting the bankruptcy of communism and hastening its collapse.
The Community has brought Britain undoubted economic and commercial benefits. The share of British exports going to the EC has increased from just over a third when we joined to well over half now. Our exports to Germany equal those to Japan and the United States combined, while EC countries now account for eight of our 10 largest export markets. EC membership has also brought us foreign investment. At the end of 1991 we received 41 per cent. of all Japanese investment in the EC and 36 per cent. of American investment. Foreign firms come here because we provide an attractive base for the single market. They add to British jobs and to the nation's prosperity.
The Bill before us allows the Government to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. With the treaty in place we shall be able to make further progress towards the kind of decentralised, open Community that we want. Europe is changing. Popular attitudes have changed, not least in France and Germany. Today's European agenda is not about federalism. It is about making Europe competitive; securing a GATT agreement; stimulating growth and jobs; and building up a single market. It is about bringing new members into the Community and building up trade and other links with Eastern Europe. Those are the practical points which flow from Maastricht. They are good for Europe. They are good for Britain. They reflect our vision of Europe, one that is worth arguing for from a position of strength, shaping the debate and our common future. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Wakeham.)
3.12 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for providing the House with an explanation of the Bill and for
550
outlining the Government's latest thinking on the Maastricht Treaty and the process that has led up to it. However, I must say that as a rallying cry for his troops to support the Bill, it was strangely piano. The trumpet seemed somewhat muted, and the tune was just a little uncertain.
It is worth remembering, as the noble Lord reminded us, that the other place spent no less than 204 hours of debate on the Bill. Over 600 amendments were tabled and the Committee stage took no less than 23 days. One must pay tribute to Members of the other place, at least for their stamina and endurance if not exactly for the speed of their decision making. This House has a reputation for compassion and for sensitivity towards the suffering of others. I am sure that many noble Lords, particularly on the Benches opposite, will feel those emotions when they consider the Government's performance throughout the Bill so far.
Let us be clear as to why that is so. It is now 18 months since the Prime Minister came back from Maastricht with the text of this treaty in his pocket. Game, set and match, we were told, and Parliament approved his performance. Let us not forget that at that time the Government's majority in another place was somewhere around 100, but no date for a general election had been set. At that moment, therefore, there was little to prevent a fairly speedy ratification of the treaty. Even allowing for the depth of the division within the Conservative Party at that time—and it has since deepened—there can hardly be much doubt that the parliamentary procedure towards ratification could then have been achieved with relatively little difficulty compared with what has actually happened.
Yet the decision was taken not to proceed quickly. One must ask why that was. Could it have been the result of a mistaken belief that by delaying the process the Government could mollify the sceptics within their own party? Frankly, it is difficult to think of any reasons other than ones connected with the internal divisions within the party opposite.
First, the Government announced that our parliamentary process would not take place until after the Danish referendum. Again, one has to ask why. Perhaps it was believed that a massive "Yes" vote in Denmark would help to discipline their Euro-sceptics here. It was unmistakably a sign of the intense uncertainty over Europe at the heart of this Government that that decision was announced. Having done that once, it clearly had to be repeated when, contrary to their expectations, Denmark voted "No". Government policy therefore produced the extraordinary, and indeed humiliating, result that a British decision on what is on any view of the matter a major national issue was to be made dependent on the votes of a foreign electorate in one of our smaller Community partners.
Then we had the paving debate—again an unnecessary and divisive affair. The Government scraped through with a majority of three; but only after the Prime Minister was forced to make further humiliating, and indeed public, concessions on the timing of the parliamentary process of the Bill by agreeing that the Third Reading in another place

551
should not occur until after the second referendum in Denmark. Why have the paving debate at all? What on earth was the point of it? The only point was that it was connected, as I said earlier, with the divisions within the party opposite. It was clearly a serious misjudgment on the part of the Government.
Finally, there is the extraordinary way in which the Bill proceeded in another place. On one crucial amendment considered advice as to its legal effect was given on one day, to be reversed by the Attorney-General in his considered advice when his attention was apparently later drawn to it. All the while the clock is ticking on, so that Britain is now the only country whose parliamentary processes towards ratification are still incomplete.
The result of this litany of misjudgment is that Britain's position inside the Community has been further eroded—and heaven knows, it was not that sound when the process started. Throughout consideration of the Bill by the other place the Government wriggled and turned in a vain attempt to stave off defeat on key amendments and to retain some semblance of party unity.
The Labour Party won crucial amendments in another place. We secured votes on the social chapter after Royal Assent but before ratification. We ensured that the European committee of the regions is served by elected representatives. We also forced the Government to accept key amendments, strengthening the Bank of England's accountability to Parliament, requiring the Government to inform Parliament on their contribution to ECOFIN and the co-ordination of economic policy, and obliging the Government to report to the Commission on the performance of the United Kingdom economy. In fact, the Labour Party ended up by drafting about 70 per cent. of the Bill. I know not whether that is some kind of record, but it is certainly an unusual parliamentary episode.
As the Leader of the House told us, the Bill is designed to enable Britain to comply with its obligations under the treaty—a treaty signed by all the Community heads of government. The signing of that treaty represented a major step in Europe's development. The Labour Party gave its broad support to the Maastricht Treaty. Perhaps I may remind the House that last year's Labour Party conference stated:
"The Maastricht Treaty, while not perfect, is the best agreement that can currently be achieved".
I quote that because it is not exactly usual for me to be able to stand up in public and claim the support of a Labour Party resolution at its annual conference behind me. I am delighted that on this issue the Labour Party has made its voice clear and unmistakable, and I totally agree with it.
We believe that the treaty can help to provide a framework for the future economic, political and social development of the Community. We therefore welcome its provisions on regional policy, the cohesion fund, majority voting on environment policy issues, public health and training for young people. We also welcome the principle of subsidiarity and the new powers given to the European Parliament. It is
552
our deep hope that the treaty can serve as an effective basis for closer relations and co-operation between member states.
President Mitterrand provided what I thought was a perceptive insight into the significance of the result of the second Danish referendum for the Community and our continent as a whole when he described it as helping,
"to clear the way to a Europe called upon to play a major role in the stability, peace and prosperity of our continent".
As we see the cycle of violence in Bosnia and as we consider the very real threat of war igniting the Balkans and spreading to the former Soviet Union, it is evident that the Community should assume that major role if Europe is to be saved from a level of political instability and violence unknown since well before the Second World War. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House sense the gravity of that situation. It highlights—does it not?—the importance of developing the closer political and economic ties established by the Maastricht Treaty and of promoting the enlargement of the Community to include the EFTA countries and the former communist states of central and eastern Europe. For them, the European Community means stability, not fragmentation, and for many of them political stability and economic opportunity are precisely what those countries require after so many years of communist government.
So those are some of the factors which determined our support in general terms for the Maastricht Treaty. Unfortunately, we were not able to extend the same backing to the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, principally because of the Government's myopic refusal to sign the social chapter. Noble Lords will recall that the Government's opposition to the social chapter and their insistence on an opt-out forced our Community partners to attach the chapter to the treaty as an annexed protocol. The Government's negotiation of opt-outs on both the social chapter and the third stage of economic and monetary union in our view has damaged British interests and at times left the United Kingdom dangerously isolated within the Community.
The first of those opt-outs, on the social chapter, is plainly damaging. The second of those opt-outs, on the final stage of economic and monetary union, is frankly incredible, if it means anything at all—which it probably does not anyway. Does anyone believe that if European monetary union takes place this country can, should or will remain outside it? Of course not. The Government's overall strategy, which was evident right from the start of the Maastricht process, has been begrudging and defensive, with the result that we have won few friends and lost a great deal of influence—and, incidentally, reading the press this morning, it looks as if the site of the bank is now clearly not going to be in London but will be in Germany.
The President of the Board of Trade, no less, recognised that in an article entitled, rather touchingly I thought, Time to get off the sidelines, which appeared

553
in The Times on 29th November 1989. Mr. Heseltine, warning of the dangers of being marginalised in Europe, wrote:
"Our absence can only permit the self-interest of other nations. We paid a heavy price when others designed the CAP. It would be unforgivable to repeat that mistake in industrial and financial policies. The same argument applies to the social chapter".
His Cabinet colleagues, notably the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, recently dismissed such warnings on the basis that a lot has changed since 1989. In one important sense they are right. Frankly, the Government's policies towards Europe have made Britain more isolated and more out of step within the Community than ever before.
In our view the social chapter is an integral ingredient of a successful single market. Our stubborn refusal to recognise that could prove costly. Not only has our hostility harmed our standing within the Community but it threatens to deprive British workers and British business of the valuable rights and benefits which their counterparts in the other 11 member states will enjoy.
In effect, the British people may expect a lower status and fewer rights than their neighbours. It seems that the Government are content, despite what the Leader of the House said this afternoon, to allow this country to have a low wage, low rights economy. Indeed, recent advertisements placed in Germany by the Department of Trade and Industry appear to indicate that the Government are making that a selling point abroad. I hope that I am not alone in finding that outrageous and totally unacceptable. In fact, I find it bizarre to think that the party opposite, which exploits every known opportunity to swathe itself in the Union Jack, should view their mismanagement of the economy as something to boast about to foreign investors. We on these Benches share the view endorsed by political parties, including the leaders of Conservative parties and employers across the Community, that Britain has much to lose and very little to gain by its protracted opposition to the social chapter.
The position of the Labour Party is therefore perfectly clear. We support the aims of the treaty. We recognise that it is by no means a perfect instrument but we believe that its advantages outweigh its costs. We deeply regret the failure of the Government to adhere to the social chapter and we are grateful that the Opposition in another place has made it possible for a vote on this issue to take place following the passage of this Bill but before ratification itself.
Perhaps I may now turn to the issue of a referendum. When the Prime Minister came back from Maastricht there were, I suppose, two routes towards ratification that he could have pursued. He could, as did some other countries in the Community, have held a national referendum on the issue and declared himself content to abide by the result. Alternatively, he could—and he did—pursue the normal route, the parliamentary route, whereby the issue would be considered by Parliament and ratification would thereafter take place.
554
I can see the arguments in other countries for their use of a referendum. Here, it would be an unusual, though I concede not unprecedented, procedure. But having opted 18 months ago for the parliamentary route it would be extraordinary if one were now to change tack. After all, Parliament has been considering the issue for a very long time. It has passed the other place and received its Third Reading there with a considerable majority. For your Lordships' House, unelected as it is, to defy the considered view of the elected Chamber and insist on a referendum when that was rejected with an overwhelming majority in the other place would, in my view, produce—to put it at its lowest —constitutional friction of considerable significance. I believe that we would be very unwise to embark upon that course.
Frankly, it is now far too late to pursue the case for a referendum. Had the Government not mishandled the situation in the way that they have done, the parliamentary process could well have been completed much earlier and I have no doubt that by now ratification would have taken place. For those reasons, we on this side of the House would not support a call for a referendum on this issue. And I am fortified yet again by the fact that last year the Labour Party conference voted overwhelmingly against a referendum on the issue of the Maastricht Treaty.
Finally, I return to the opposition to the Bill. It falls into two categories. There are those who have opposed these matters on principle over many years. I think particularly —I hope he will forgive my mentioning him—of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I respect his views on the Community though I profoundly disagree with them; they have been consistent, they are principled and they are well informed. Others, if I may say so, seem to have come to their opposition somewhat late, having supported the contrary view for many years past. Perhaps in their case a "suppressed reluctance" has now broken out into the open. But whatever it is, there is neither principle nor logic in complaining now, in 1993, about the effects of the Single European Act which was passed in 1986. That is true particularly of those who were responsible for the passage of that Act. It opened the door to more majority voting; it talked in the preamble about the need for a closer union; and indeed it did many of the things that some people opposed to the treaty now complain of about Maastricht itself. Those who were mute in 1986, or indeed were active in promoting the passage of that Bill, must be presumed to have intended the consequences of their actions. To complain now about those consequences is perhaps just a little tardy.
On balance, I am in favour of the passage of the Bill for one simple reason, and it is precisely the same reason which has motivated my attitude towards Europe for some 35 years. The nightmare that confronts this country is one in which continental Europe becomes more and more united and Britain becomes more and more isolated. We really must not repeat the mistakes of past generations who assumed that the Europeans could never get their act together and that, if they did, it would not amount to a great deal. They did and it has!

555
The drive towards greater unity in Europe is patently there. We have to decide as a country whether or not we are to be part of that movement. While one can argue about the fine print of the treaty—and all of us have reservations on some parts of it—in the end the issues are fundamentally simple. Is Britain to continue to play its part as a member of a movement towards a closer unity in Europe, or are we to withdraw? I have no doubt where the interests of our country lie and what the answer to that question should be.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, my noble friends and I believe strongly that the endless and convoluted debate in another place has deadened rather than informed public consciousness in regard to the real issues involved in the future of Europe and Britain's place in it. We hope that that dreary charade will not be repeated in your Lordships' House.
We support the ratification of Maastricht and want it done quickly. It would have been a great deal better if the Government had got on with the matter after the overwhelming Second Reading vote and had not humiliatingly hung around waiting for Denmark. I agree with the points made on that issue by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as I agreed with much of the tone and detailed arguments of his speech. However, at one point he left me wondering, as he described the glory of the Labour Party amendments which had underwritten 70 per cent. of the Bill, why the party abstained on Third Reading.
Having said that, I am bound to say that although I thought the Leader of the House raised the level of his speech a little in the last two or three minutes, the major part of it was a classic example of the negative and apologetic attitude to Europe which is largely responsible for the fact that the Government have been unsuccessful in rallying support for their European and other policies.
That does not mean that we on these Benches are starry-eyed about the treaty. In many ways it provides a less concrete avenue of advance for Europe than did the Single European Act of 1986. In my view it is also less of a technical invasion of sovereignty than was that measure. I say "technical" because I believe that the real limitations on national sovereignty arise much more from the facts of the highly integrated modern world than from any treaties or Acts.
What is also the case is that the Single European Act heralded a remarkable five years of European integrationist dynamism—the strongest since the first days of the Community after the Treaty of Rome when we were mistakenly on the sidelines. By contrast, the 18 months since Maastricht have been some of the most difficult in the history of the Community. It follows that if there was ever any danger of European integration acquiring what for some people would be an unacceptable and uncomfortable momentum, it was in 1986 and 1987 and certainly not today.
That makes the more mystifying the attitude of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who is to speak in our debate and the deadly nature of whose speech has been trailed with unusual assurance. Not only was the
556
noble Baroness responsible for Britain's adherence to the Single European Act, but also she pushed it through the House of Commons with the strongest of Whips and allowed no fumbling delay such as that displayed by the present Government. There was no filibustering because the noble Baroness simply guillotined the Bill.
There has never been a more classic case of swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat. Her loyal lieutenant, then Chairman of the Conservative Party and a leading Member of the Cabinet, was the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Therefore they both have a history of dealing with European legislation which makes anything done in the 1970s by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, a model of consistency.
We now have their chosen instrument of the referendum. It is a subject which is engraved on my heart. Twenty-one years ago I resigned from the deputy leadership of the Labour Party on this issue —a position in those days, when Labour was still a party of government, not without its prospects. I resigned because I thought that the discreditable tactical switch to advocating a referendum was unacceptable. The noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, Lord Lever of Manchester, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and Lord Owen, and several others not in your Lordships' House, resigned with me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, agreed with me—at least she voted against the amendment which was the cause of all the trouble. But in 1975, when the issue of a referendum again came before Parliament, she did much more than that. In speaking against the Referendum Bill, the noble Baroness quoted with approval a 1945 Statement of Lord Attlee which said that the referendum was a device alien to all our traditions which had only too often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism.
That was a rather extreme view with which I am bound to say I would not entirely agree. However, it is the case that at that time the noble Baroness most firmly opposed it. It did not carry the day. In the summer of 1975 we had our one experience of a general referendum in this country. I confess that, strongly though I was opposed to it taking place, I much enjoyed the campaign, in which, with the gracious agreement of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, I acted as president of the "Yes" organisation. I particularly enjoyed the result which, it should be remembered—contrary to all the earlier expectations of those hostile to Europe and contrary to the earlier polls—was a two-to-one majority in favour.
Therefore as an anti-European device, the referendum proved to be a totally broken reed. Nevertheless, I would not be in favour of repeating the experiment today. First, with the present lack of respect for government—exceptionally but not uniquely strong in this country—many electors would be disposed to seize any opportunity of cocking a snook at the ministers of whom they are so contemptuous. And I would not wish to tie the fate of Britain's long-term orientation to the present vote-winning capacity of this Government, or to the chance of whether or not the green shoots of recovery

557
might at last begin to burgeon before the votes were cast. I am perfectly sure that the very narrow results of the French referendum last autumn, in spite of the support of most of the leaders of the opposition in France, had a great deal to do with the unpopularity of both the president and his then government. The paradox was that a lot of the votes which appeared to be cast against Brussels were in reality cast against the French national government.
Secondly, the confused and tedious debate which in the past months has dominated Parliament while rating low in the public's order of priorities has made the waters surrounding the European issue both stagnant and muddied. So much so that I doubt very much whether clarity could quickly be imported into the issue or whether a poll approaching the 66 per cent. of 1975 could be achieved.
There is a third issue on this referendum point which I mention with some circumspection because it involves the internal affairs of a party not my own. If anyone thinks that a referendum would relieve the current internal strains of the Conservative Party I believe that they are profoundly mistaken. A referendum involves something very near to fighting a general election campaign. If that is done with different factions within the same party and different Ministers within the same Cabinet fighting on different sides, as was the case in 1975, the trauma is deep and lasting. Speaking with close experience of both events, I believe, as a matter of objective judgment, that, though unforeseen at the time, the 1975 referendum campaign had a great deal to do with the 1981 split in the Labour Party and the creation of the SDP.
I think that the central case for ratifying Maastricht is that it will retain some sinews of order in Western Europe. The disruption in the world since the putative glorious revolution of 1989, arising hopes as high as those in the breast of Wordsworth 200 years before, has been appalling. Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union vary between bloody tribalism in Yugoslavia and depressed separatism in the old Czechoslovakia. Western Europe has so far remained free of anything like that. But it has suffered from a severe decline in the authority of government in every major country, and in many of the smaller ones too. For a few brief months at the beginning of this year it seemed that across the Atlantic the United States might be a major exception. There was a brief window of hope. Now, temporarily at least, that seems to have darkened. The only possible exception to this pattern of disregard may be the Balladur government in France, but that exception should be treated with caution both because it is so new and because it has an executive president sitting on top of it or at least alongside it. For the rest, the end of the cold war has produced almost as much disarray among the winners as among the losers. It is like the end of a tug-of-war in which both teams fall over in the mud as soon as the tension is removed.
The ratification of Maastricht will not in itself pull everyone out of the mud and put them on their feet again. It will not in itself solve the problems of
558
disarray in Western Europe. But it is a necessary condition for beginning to do so. And British ratification is an even more necessary condition for Britain playing any effective role in the Community. I do not myself believe that we will see the recovery of real European momentum before the deadening hand of recession begins to recede and until the Community can show its relevance to producing such a recovery. I have long been a dedicated European, but I also like to think that I have been as much or more of a Euro-realist as anyone who so proclaims himself in hostility. I have never believed in proclaiming idle or irrelevant goals. I think that some practical measures to reduce unemployment would do more good to the European idea than any rhetoric we could possibly invent at the present time.
Yet by the same realistic test I note that those who are hostile to full British commitment to Europe have never come within miles of producing a coherent alternative strategy for Britain. Any kind of exclusive Atlantic link now seems to me as much of a will-o'-the-wisp as was a Commonwealth orientation 20 years ago. And to take one concrete issue, the Government of the noble Baroness were, as I understood it, as dedicated to the enlargement of the Community—certainly to the EFTA applicants and later to the Western Crescent of the three old Iron Curtain countries—as are the present government. How anyone could possibly believe that a Community thrown into confusion by the collapse of Maastricht will proceed to early enlargement I cannot imagine. There will on the contrary be a battening down of the hatches, a mood of sullen caution, an instinctive determination not to agree to anything which a British Government, having first contracted out of half the treaty and then wrecked the rest of it, want to happen.
Maastricht, in spite of Mr. Major's excessive claims for his triumph there, is not God's gift to man, but its ratification is now essential if Europe is to conduct reappraisal of its future in an atmosphere of common purpose rather than of mutual suspicion, and if Britain is not to be reviled within it. Let us get on with it, and get on quickly, for we have been dithering too long.
3.48 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that during the decade that I have been privileged to serve in your Lordships' House I have very carefully avoided speaking on what I considered to be clearly party political issues. Following the precedent of others who have been Speaker of the House of Commons, I have endeavoured to speak on those issues which are not clearly belonging to one side or the other. I believe that the destiny of the British people is bigger than any party and that this House has an equal responsibility with the other House to give careful consideration to what is at stake.
First, I am of the opinion that those who support Maastricht and those who oppose it will agree that the course for Britain will never be the same again if this treaty is ratified. It is no good noble Lords speaking with such enthusiasm. The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead have much more

559
experience of Europe than I have because they were both part of the bureaucracy of Europe and of the institution there. I almost felt that I should not stand between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins who himself is hardly in a position to talk about inconsistency. I hope that he understands what I mean. There is a message in where he is sitting in the same way as there is a message in where I am sitting.
Because I believe that the sovereignty of our country is at stake I feel obliged to address your Lordships' House and say this: Power under Maastricht is to be transferred from the elected representatives of our people to Europe where we will be a permanent minority. It will be 15 per cent. Tell our unemployed to go to Germany and look for a job; to go to Italy to look for a job and to go to France to look for a job. They will look to the High Court of Parliament here to take the economic measures that we believe are in our national interest. I say with respect to the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, that his speech was the least enthusiastic of the three to which I have listened.
Since we joined the Community we have had a net trading deficit of no less than £81 billion to which might be added a net deficit in our Community contributions of over £13 billion, making all told a deficit for this country with the Community since we joined of the best part of £95 billion. It is interesting to note that 70 per cent. of the world's trade is still conducted between English-speaking countries. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, scolded the noble Baroness who is to follow me in this debate for quoting Clem Attlee. Perhaps I may quote what Winston Churchill said in 1953. Many a time that great leader of our nation was prophetic both before the war and during the war. I served on the opposite Benches to him for 15 years in another place. He said:
"We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are associated but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us and say, 'Shall we speak for thee?', we should reply, 'Nay Sir, for we dwell among our own people'".
The long proud history of the House of Commons and of your Lordships' House is very precious. The dignity of our nation is wrapped up in the history of our people. Therefore, who should decide? Scorn has been poured on a referendum, yet the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan will know that we had a referendum over the piffling issue of that non-legislative assembly in Wales. It was thought essential. Parliament could not decide. The Government decided that the people must decide because the constitution was affected. We all know that the constitution is very much affected today.
In the first referendum that took us into Europe we had an assurance from all the leaders that our sovereignty would never be in question. We have been led inch by inch and now they tell us that we have gone too far and that we cannot pull back. I believe in this country and I believe that the British people are equal with the French and the Danes in their ability to measure where their interests lie. This is a matter where the High Court of Parliament should say to the people, "This is our advice and because we are
560
deciding for those yet unborn, let the people as a whole decide". Britain wants a referendum and she deserves it.
3.57 p.m.
Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, when I came to this House it was somehow under the impression that things were less lively here, much more courteous and much less robust. I find that it is not so and I am delighted. First, perhaps I may make one or two remarks about what my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said. He referred very much to the importance of trade and said that Europe is an excellent export market for us. We are of course an even better import market for the rest of Europe. We have had a great deficit on trade ever since we entered.
The answer is not in the Maastricht Treaty, but for Europe to negotiate firmly and quickly under the GATT arrangements, which negotiations Europe is at present holding up. It is stopping the very thing that we need. Perhaps I may also say this to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: will he do me the honour of reading through the speech to the end? He will see that I said that perhaps Lord Attlee was right, that there was a place for a referendum when that is the only way of putting an important single constitutional issue to the people. Otherwise, having two main parties, we vote on a general manifesto, and there is no way of putting an important constitutional issue to the people, except by a referendum. That is why we have had referenda on Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They were constitutional issues.
I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. Let me make it quite clear that we are now debating whether we go further with the Maastricht Treaty. I agree with his fundamental underlying assumption; namely, that it is that treaty which takes us over the top to a new political entity, a European union, which we have never had before. Before that, we had never gone that way but had kept quite a bit of sovereignty, and it is the last lot that we are in danger of losing.
Therefore, it follows that even if we were not to endorse Maastricht—and I am very much aware of the rules of this House—we are still members of the Treaty of Rome; we cannot break it. We are still members of the Single European Act; we could not break that. We do not break our treaties—and if ever we did, no one would ever sign one with us again. So even if we did not endorse Maastricht, we would still be part of Europe. And if we did not, it would be the others who would have to reconsider matters and go ahead. I firmly believe that there are more important matters going wrong with Europe which we should consider at the moment—some things at the Court are very much to our distaste, as are some aspects of majority voting. We should be considering some of those matters rather than having this treaty, which is a fundamental change forward.
Perhaps I may revert to the speech that I had intended to make. I shall try to cut it down a little. I believe very much, with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that it does not matter where we sit in this House; it does not matter where we work in the

561
country or what our party politics are; it is our country's future that is at stake. It is our parliamentary institutions. It is our court of law. We called ourselves "free people" long before we had a universal vote in this country because we had the most excellent rule of law—and that matters to us very much.
If one looks back and tries to view things in a broad sweep, one finds that there have always been two views of Europe: one is of nation states freely co-operating together with an effective veto either by unanimity or by the Luxembourg Compromise—and, of course, majority voting did not start with the Single European Act; it is right in the Treaty of Rome. That is why de Gaulle had the Luxembourg Compromise —because he quarrelled with something which would otherwise have been done by majority voting. The Luxembourg Compromise acted as a veto. That view was always compatible with what is called "the new world order" —the United Nations, the GATT and the IMF. It was compatible with that view because those institutions were perfectly all right for all small nations. By joining them, no small nation lost its identity. Each retained its identity in those institutions. So, that first view of Europe was compatible with that order.
The second view has always been towards an integrated European union. That is why the phrase an "ever closer union" was put in the Treaty of Rome —not clothed with meaning. We always had the assurance to which my noble friend referred. There was always an assurance that we would keep our identity and our veto but gradually, little by little, it went and everything came in stages. Whatever you said in the Community, it had to be the first stage of something which led to one destination, a European union. You did not have any other alternatives. You were either on a slow train or a fast train, but you were on the train to that destination—and if you do not want to go to that destination, it does not matter at what speed you go. You do not want to be on it at all. I suggest that we do not want to go any further on that train.
Everything is a stage. I remember when we put forward the hard ecu in the Council of Ministers as a possible common currency. Yes, they would consider the hard ecu, but would I not tack on to it as a stage towards a single currency? No, I would not. It was simple staging but the same destination. That is what Maastricht is all about—that destination—and it very nearly gets there.
Perhaps your Lordships will look back to 1972 when we went in and at the assurances and the referendum assurances. They are all there for everyone to see. As I expected, the Single European Act has been much mentioned already. Right in the heart of the Treaty of Rome is the need to have a common market. That was how we were going to get our prosperity up; that was how we were going to have more jobs; that was how we were going to compete the world over because we had a large enough market to compete with the American market and a large enough market ultimately to compete with the Far East.
562
So, yes, we wanted a common or single market but it was a long time before the Community got down to it. Eventually in 1985 we started to prepare for this single or common market and to get rid of the massive number of both tariff and non-tariff barriers that were needed. I was at the forefront of that campaign because I believed that we wanted it. At first, I thought that we could get it without any changes in legislation. I thought that if there was reasonable goodwill, we could have it. But there was not reasonable goodwill and we had to have an inter-governmental conference. And the point is this: we would never have got the single market without an extension—not the beginning, but an extension—of majority voting. We could never have got our insurance into Germany—where they promptly kept it out—unless we had majority voting. We could never have got a fair deal for our ships in picking up goods from other ports as others could pick up from ours. We could never have got a fair deal for our lorry and transport business because our lorries had to go over there full and come back empty as they were not allowed to pick up on the way back. Yes, we wanted a single market and we had, in fact, to have some majority voting.
But as noble Lords will see if they look back at the debate on that Single European Act, we were very careful indeed to say that some things are so important that they must be subject to unanimous voting. Those were—and I quote—
"fiscal provisions, free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employed persons".
All of those required unanimous voting. For other things for which we did not have unanimous voting but majority voting, we kept intact the Luxembourg Compromise. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe gave those assurances and my noble friend Lady Chalker gave even firmer assurances, if she looks back, than the ones that I have given, but we had those assurances. And, let it be said, we believed that the Commission would honour those assurances. We believed that they would honour the unanimity that is in the Act; they did not. We believed that they would not pile on excessive regulations because of the extra cost to industry (and if we were to compete in the world, that would be a very silly thing to do); they did pile on extra regulations. Our good faith in them was not justified—and it is written on my heart.
The Commission deliberately chose to evade the unanimity rule and to bring in, for example, the 48-hour working week regulation under a qualified majority heading, such as health and safety. As soon as the other place passed this Bill, the Commission put the 48-hour working week through on a qualified majority—against Britain. Now, fortunately, our Government have referred it to the European Court. I shall say a few things about that in a moment. The courts have previously upheld qualified majority on the part of the Commission against unanimity. When they have had a choice, there have been occasions when the courts have upheld their decisions to go by qualified majority.

563
Yes, we got our fingers burned under the Single European Act. We still needed it, but that qualified majority was for one purpose only, and it is specified in the Act. It was
"with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31 December 1992".
That was all that the extra majority voting was for, and yet the Maastricht Treaty is much, much wider. The Maastricht Treaty extends the powers of the Commission from 11 to 20 areas of government and provides for 111 new occasions when decisions can be by qualified majority. This is a massive extension. In our case, it will be only about 100 occasions unless we were to go into the single currency, which I hope we never do. Some of those majority occasions include decisions in economic and monetary policy. This is an overwhelming centralisation of decisions by bureaucracy at the expense of democracy and at the expense of accountability to the electorate. In view of what happened under the Single European Act when we got our fingers burned, it surely is time to heed Kipling's warning:
"And the burned Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire".
Do not let ours be that bandaged finger.
Perhaps I may say a word about subsidiarity, a topic to which my noble friend referred. The treaty talks about subsidiarity, and then it immediately confirms the present corpus of law (the acquis communautaire). So subsidiarity does not go to any regulations or directives which are already in commission. The Commission's view on subsidiarity is put very interestingly in a long document presented to the Council and Parliament. The Commission points out in that document:
"The enshrinement of subsidiarity in the Treaty (of Maastricht) … provided an opportunity to stress that subsidiarity cannot be used to bring the Commission to heel by challenging its right of initiative and in this way altering the ballance established by the Treaties".
The Edinburgh Summit communique said something similar. It said:
"The principle of subsidiarity does not relate to and cannot call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty as interpreted by the Court … The application of the principle shall respect the general provisions of the Maastricht Treaty including maintaining in full the acquis communautaire and it shall not affect the primacy of Community law nor shall it call into question the principle set out in Article F(3) of the Treaty … according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
I suggest respectfully that that is another assurance that will turn out not to be an assurance at all, but a great move, as the noble Lord said, towards much greater centralisation.
I shall say a word about the European Court because it has had a great effect upon the powers that we have relinquished. It has by its decisions greatly extended the powers of the centralised institutions against the nation state. Its methods of interpreting the law are totally different from those of our courts and nothing like so exact or so good. The court draws upon the objective of European integration to inform all its rulings by which over a period of time it has therefore furthered decisions towards a unitary European state.
564
The court has also overruled specific legislation passed in good faith through Parliament recently (the Merchant Shipping Act 1988) which was framed to stop Spanish fishing vessels from quota-hopping; that is, taking part of our fishing quota under the common fisheries policy. That Act went overboard because by same strange device the court said that Community law overrode it. Even though it was recent, we did not prevail. The court has also reinterpreted the derivative rights directive. It is busy reinterpreting so many things to give itself and the Community more powers at our expense.
That court does not have constitutional checks and balances to temper its power. What was tolerable in a few cases is not bearable on the scale it is happening now, and it will accelerate under the massive opportunities provided by Maastricht to which I have referred, thus undermining the basis upon which we require people to obey the law; namely, that either it is consecrated by time and custom or it has been made with the assent of the people's elected representatives. That is the whole basis upon which we do not ask people to obey the law; we require them to obey the law. That basis is diminishing gradually. With increased majority voting, many more laws will be made, possibly against the will of elected representatives, and Parliament could not do a thing about it. It may be all right for a few, but not for the massive extra number.
Moreover, only three out of the 13 judges of the European Court have judicial experience in their own countries. Perhaps that explains a lot! They all have legal qualifications: some have been Ministers; some have been senior civil servants. But we are used to having proper judges. Further, one judgment only is issued. We do not even know whether any judges dissented—we are not allowed to know—let alone upon what grounds. We, with our ancient court traditions and ancient rule of justice have far more to lose in this matter than any other country, many of which we doubt will respect some of the Community laws in any respect.
Perhaps I may make some additional comments on the Maastricht Treaty before coming to the referendum. It starts in clear terms:
"By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union … This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union".
There it is—straight out: a new stage. It is a very important big step, because it seeks a new political entity, something we have never had before. It creates a European Union. Later, Article 8 creates a citizenship of the Union, something totally new. It establishes it. It applies to every person holding the nationality of a member state.
The article refers to rights and duties and spells out the new rights which can be extended. Moreover, if there is a citizenship, you would all owe a duty of allegiance to the new Union. What else is citizenship about? There will be a duty to uphold its laws. What will happen if the allegiance to the Union comes into conflict with allegiance to our own country? How would the European Court find then? The Maastricht Treaty gives this new European Union all the attributes of a sovereign state.

565
I shall go through those attributes quickly. What are the attributes of a sovereign state? First, there is citizenship. It gives the right to conduct foreign policy and assert its identity on the international scene (the whole of this treaty has that); and the right to frame a common defence policy which in time could lead to common defence (the treaty has that). It has its own Supreme Court of Justice, the guardian of its constitution. It has its own external boundaries. It manages its own economic and monetary policy. It will have its own central bank, ultimately including a single currency, hopefully not including us, although we have signed up to the idea of a single currency. It has a single market. It conducts its international trade negotiations as a unit. We have no authority to conduct trade negotiations. We lost that in 1972. We have signed up to the objective of a high level of social protection. I wonder whether the social chapter will be brought in by the European Court to apply to Britain, because we have signed up to that high level of social protection. There is an embryo government in the Council of Ministers (the European Council); there is an executive in the Commission; and there is an elected European Parliament. All of that is "the single institutional framework" to which the treaty refers.
The voluntary alliance of 12 nations that we joined is being turned gradually into a new political entity —a European super state. I doubt very much whether the people realise what is happening. Unification is supposed to be the natural direction of development.
There is a review promised in 1996 by the treaty. There is always a relaunch. One reaches one stage and then there is always a relaunch. Now there is a relaunch and a review. The review of 1996 is in the treaty. It is not an open review. As Article N points out, that review must be in accordance with the objectives of an ever-closer union which is set out in Title (1).
I could never have signed this treaty. I hope that that is clear to all who have heard me. The Bill will pass considerable further powers irrevocably from Westminster to Brussels, and, by extending majority voting, will undermine our age-old parliamentary and legal institutions, both far older than those in the Community. We have so much more to lose by this Maastricht Treaty than any other state in the European Community. It will diminish democracy and increase bureaucracy.
M. Delors knew well the importance of his words when he spoke to the European Parliament in 1988. He said:
"Ten years hence, 80% of our economic legislation, and perhaps even our fiscal and social legislation as well, will be of Community origin".
He went on, and this is not so generally known:
"In 10 countries, though"—
we were excluded—
"there has been no realization of this, and in these same 10 countries there is no co-operation between European parliamentarians and national parliaments".
Then he went on:
"What I am afraid of is that some of these national parliaments are going to wake up with a shock one day, and that their outraged reaction will place yet more obstacles in the way of progress towards European Union".
566
The national parliaments are entitled to have an outraged reaction. They will soon be little more than an agency for the Commission and for the European Council.
Finally, the referendum. No elector in this country has been able to vote against Maastricht—none. It has been impossible to do so. I think that when one looks at the extent of the powers which are being handed over, it would be disgraceful if we denied them that opportunity. Yes, we waited with bated breath for both Danish referenda. They thought that people were bullied out of their first decision. So much for the unanimity rule.
Further, in the other place less than half the honourable Members voted for the treaty. The electorate has not been able to vote and half the honourable Members in the other place—less than half; 292 out of some 650—voted for the treaty. We are in the Rome Treaty and in the Single European Act and we stay there. I believe that to hand over the people's parliamentary rights on the scale of the Maastricht Treaty without the consent of the people in a referendum would be to betray the trust—as guardians of the parliamentary institutions, of the courts and of the constitution—that they have placed in us.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, in a modest way I wish at the outset to alter the course of this debate. As yet, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has not come in for much thanks but I wish to thank him for explaining so clearly the provisions of the Bill. It is a short Bill but a complex one and he has explained it plainly. It is also clear from today's debate that the Bill is important. That is plain both from the number of speakers who are taking part and from their experience.
It is a privilege to speak following the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not follow her in the substance of what she said, but add simply this. Undeniably hers was a contribution on an occasion of such significance as this which your Lordships would not have wished to have been without. For that I certainly offer my thanks, even if I do not follow her in substance.
I must in fairness warn your Lordships that my contribution will not be as exciting as those which we have already heard nor, I am sure, many of those which we look forward to enjoying. It will be largely factual and probably uncontroversial. However, it would be rash of me, if not presumptuous in this perhaps somewhat highly charged situation, to predict that it might be universally acceptable. I wish to say something about the impact of the treaty on parliamentary scrutiny of Community affairs carried out in your Lordships' House by the European Communities Committee, which I chair. Perhaps that will strike a chord with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, because during the course of her remarks she mentioned the importance of our Parliament and our parliamentary institution.
This duty to scrutinise and the power which goes with it amount to one of the most powerful devices

567
possessed by this House. It stems from the undertaking given by the Government that they will not, save in exceptional circumstances, agree in the Council to a Community proposal until the scrutiny reserve on it has been lifted by your Lordships' Select Committee. And a similar power is held in another place through its Select Committee on European Legislation.
The European Communities Committee has not made a report to this House on the provisions of the treaty agreed at Maastricht. As a scrutiny committee, its principal role remains to make reports to the House on important Community proposals before and not after they are adopted. But many of the provisions in the treaty have been the subject of committee reports in recent years, and there is a substantial body of opinion in its reports relevant to many aspects of the treaty. I should like to mention one or two examples. A report in 1990 supported the proposal that Union citizens should have voting rights in local and European Parliament elections in their country of residence —a provision which can be found in Article 8a of the treaty. There are several articles, too, that seek to strengthen measures against fraud in the Community, including new powers for the Court of Auditors under Article 188. These provisions will certainly strike a welcome chord in your Lordships' House and there have been two major reports on this vital matter in recent years. Other reports have expressed support for specific Community competence for education and culture, for human health protection and for consumer protection. Provisions to these ends can all be found in the treaty, and some of them were referred to by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
There are two specific reports which I single out. They were both made before the Maastricht agreement in December 1991 but they remain wholly germane to our debate today. The first was the remarkable report of the inquiry into economic and monetary union and political union, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. The second was the report of an inquiry on political union: law-making powers and procedures, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. Many of the conclusions in those reports supported the broad direction in which the treaty emerged; notably the two intergovernmental pillars of the common foreign and security policy and co-operation in home affairs and justice. However, there were exceptions. Both reports expressed doubts, for instance, about the proposed co-decision procedure between Council and Parliament and they came down in favour of only a limited, not a blanket, increase in qualified majority voting. In any event, I commend those excellent reports to your Lordships: I am able to pay this tribute as I was not a member of the committee at that time.
I should like to turn now to the question of parliamentary scrutiny and, in particular, to draw attention to two little known but, in my view, most important declarations attached to the treaty for which I know that Her Majesty's Government were at least in part responsible.
568
The first concerns future meetings of conferences of parliaments—the so-called "Assises"—held only once, in Rome, in 1990 prior to the intergovernmental conferences. The declaration invites such conferences to meet "as necessary". These are large-scale meetings. That in Rome was attended by no fewer than 258 representatives; two-thirds from national parliaments and one-third from the European Parliament. Opinions are divided on their potential usefulness and some see that there is perhaps the danger that they will become—dare I say it?—little more than talking shops.
But I do not hesitate to welcome wholeheartedly the second declaration which encourages greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the Union and the stepping up of contacts between national parliaments and the European Parliament. This seems to me a vital ingredient in the Maastricht package and, if I may say so, a most welcome conversion; certainly on the part of Community institutions. In the European Communities Committee we welcome especially the statement that governments will ensure that parliaments receive Commission proposals in good time for possible examination. I am bound to say that, on the whole, we at Westminster are well served by government departments in that respect; but, if necessary, we shall not hesitate to quote the declaration loudly and often if documents are slow in coming or do not come at all.
With one exception, the treaty will not, we believe, affect our well established scrutiny procedures. The exception is the need for some sort of parliamentary scrutiny, and so democratic control, of the two intergovernmental pillars; and that is something to which the committee, and indeed committees in another place, are giving careful consideration. In fact, your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities is now carrying out an inquiry into this whole matter. We shall shortly hear evidence from the Home Secretary and from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I must not pre-empt our inquiry, but I think that we are already clear that Parliament must receive appropriate documents arising from the pillars and be given the chance to scrutinise them carefully. It follows that there will be some increase in the committee's work load. I feel it right to alert your Lordships to that.
One Community body which is most certainly not a talking shop is the Conference of European Affairs Committees, consisting of representatives of all the parliamentary scrutiny committees through the Community; from national parliaments and from the European Parliament. It meets every six months in the country of the presidency. At the meeting last month, in Copenhagen, one of the main debates was on plans to scrutinise the two new pillars. On behalf of the United Kingdom delegation I had proposed this subject for the agenda and initiated the debate. It provided a timely means of focusing attention on the need for this extra scrutiny. I add my thanks for the valuable contributions made by the other two Members of your Lordships' House who attended—the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley.

569
The scrutiny development that I have mentioned will be a vital part of the Maastricht package. We must ensure that it works and that it works effectively.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, it will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that there is a phenomenal number of speakers in the debate. I calculate that it is three times the average daily attendance of this House when I first became a Member. It is not for me to say which is better.
I should have hesitated to speak to your Lordships when there are so many others who wish to do so but over the years I have been involved, in various capacities, in Britain's commitment to the European Community. Therefore, I thought it right to put on record where I stand as regards the Bill.
Over a very long period—some 40 years—I have believed that Britain's membership of the European Community is an essential requirement for our economic and political survival. That is partly because, as a result of the war and the decolonisation of the British Empire, we were left in a changed and weakened political and economic position; partly because the war must or should have taught us that an association with Europe was not just an economic but a political and defence necessity; and partly because the Commonwealth no longer could be a substitute partner for us. Even 35 years ago, when I lived in Australia, it was more than obvious that the Commonwealth countries were making their own economic alliances.
Therefore, I am for Europe. But I do not feel at all uncritical of some of the things that have happened or indeed of some aspects of the Maastricht Treaty. It seems to me that one of the difficulties of an association of twelve independent countries—soon to be more—is their diversity: their different traditions, background and temperaments which make up the whole. For example, there is a radical difference of attitude between what one might call the conceptualists and the pragmatists. In greater or smaller measure, all the twelve countries fall into one of those two camps. The conceptualists favour blueprints and timetables while the pragmatists essentially query concepts, often asking the conceptualists the rather irritating question, "Yes, but what does it really mean?" Of course, both have a point.
The European Community would not exist were it not for the concept of Mr. Monnet, but the pragmatists must surely be right to seek practical solutions to vague concepts. But I am inclined to think that that difference of attitude and perception lies at the heart of some of the problems in the Community at present.
If we go too fast and too far, there is a real danger that public opinion will not have caught up and that attitudes and traditions which are very deep rooted in most people, whether they know it or not, leave them unprepared for a change which, as time goes on, will be inevitable.
570
At the same time, if there is no progress forward, if there is no aim, if there is no attempt at keeping the momentum of Europe going, frustration and inertia become as great a danger.
It therefore follows that a very delicate balance is necessary, and that dilemma lies at the heart of a great deal of the opposition to the Maastricht Treaty. Of course, there are those opposed to the treaty who are essentially opposed to the idea of the European Community in any shape or form and are taking advantage of Maastricht to promote their view. But there are also those who feel that the balance in the treaty has gone too far in favour of the conceptualists.
Equally, a lot of criticism of the treaty has nothing to do with the contents of the treaty at all. It concerns the Commission in Brussels. I speak as a farmer and I am a little uncertain as to whether all the rules and regulations which have submerged us in paper over these last months come from the Commission or an over-zealous Ministry of Agriculture. Whichever is the case, it has been intolerable. However, the remedy is in the hands of the Foreign Ministers, the deputies or the Ministers in the various committees. They have the power to block, if they wish to, any of those regulations. If, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher said, subsidiarity in its current form is not strong enough, it is up to Ministers to see that it is. We must do away with those absurdities which have little to do with the proper purposes of the Community.
With regard to the treaty, I make it plain that I am not a federalist in the sense in which we in Britain talk about federalism. That view is shared by Her Majesty's Government and has been made plain by the Prime Minister. But I do want closer integration. I want to be on the train to which my noble friend referred. I do not wish to be left stranded in perpetuity at Crewe. However, I want to know what is the destination and I do not want us to reach the destination until all the passengers have decided exactly where they wish to go. Nor am I in any way opposed to a common foreign policy, a common defence policy or a common currency provided that those are practical propositions with some prospect of success and support.
There is no way in the current circumstances that those three desirable aims can be achieved in the timetable that is envisaged. Anybody who spent, as I did, one year chairing the EC Peace Conference on Yugoslavia can bear witness to the lack of foreign common policy and the catastrophic consequences of trying to pretend that there was one. However, in most circumstances we are in broad agreement.
There can be no common defence policy at the present time since there is a wide difference of opinion about the role of the Americans and the relationship of a European defence policy to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Nor is it very probable in the near future that circumstances can exist in which a common currency can be introduced. However, that does not mean that the aims are not desirable and that we should not support them.

571
What has changed since the signing of Maastricht last year has been public opinion in France and, to a lesser extent, in Germany. In my judgment much of what is contained in the Treaty will not happen.
What would be very relevant would be a vote against the Treaty. The consequences of such a vote would be extremely grave for this country. There is no doubt that our partners are becoming increasingly frustrated with what they see as the long period of time which we have taken in making up our minds. I am sure that they would go ahead without us and that we would be marginalised. We would have very little input into the future of Europe except for sitting on the sidelines, to be overtaken by events, unable to shape the Community's future and possibly not all that much of our own. No responsible person should risk that situation.
Her Majesty's Government have been pursuing sensible policies which are a pragmatic and gradualist approach, based on what is practical. Those policies should be given time and the support of this House and the moderate, wise voice of Britain should be heard in the Councils of the twelve.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am very pleased to be succeeding the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in the debate. He has spoken to us very powerfully and convincingly, based on his wealth of practical experience in European affairs. I am sure that his remarks will profoundly influence the remainder of the debate.
I propose to restrict my own remarks to the economic and monetary aspects of the treaty. We should remind ourselves that the process of the creation of Europe, as Jean Monnet called it, has been going on for nearly half a century. It was launched by the Schuman Plan in the late 1940s, which led to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. It then led to the Treaty of Rome of 1957, to the Single European Act in 1986, and to the present treaty, which will certainly not be the last step in the process. Therefore, the matter must be seen in that evolving context.
During that period of nearly half a century the role of Britain, with its continued uncertainty as to whether it should be in or out, with or of, has been most regrettable. I was involved in the early stages with the setting up of the European Coal and Steel Community. The Government of the day, the Attlee Government, made a mistake in not joining. Mr. Hugh Dalton is reported to have stated:
"We have just nationalised the coal and steel industries. Let us not have them internationalised".
In my opinion that statement revealed a misconception of what was happening in Europe at the time.
We were invited by Paul Henri Speak to participate in the Messina Conference which led to the Treaty of Rome, in 1955. Monsieur Spaak stated, unlike what was said at the time of the Schuman Plan, "There are no pre-conditions". At the time of the Schuman Plan we were asked to accept supra nationality. Monsieur Spaak said, "Come in and negotiate with the rest of us". We refused to do so. We paid a heavy price for
572
that mistake because when we eventually joined the Community in 1973 much had been decided that would not have been decided in that form had we been a member from the beginning.
It is worth recalling those facts so that the same mistake is not repeated. We all agree that we are in the Community and that there is no question of going back on our adhesion to the Treaty of Rome or to the Single European Act. However, if we were to decide not to participate in the Treaty of Maastricht and in the ongoing practical process of creating Europe, we would be in a very serious difficulty. We would be committed to many principles, concepts and rules but their evolution would be in other hands and no longer in ours. That would be a very dangerous position to be in.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, emphasised that one of the most important recent developments within the Community has been the creation of the single market. Britain has played a very large part in that process. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, translated a broad concept into a practical reality. He identified 282 measures that were necessary to create the single market and to remove the non-tariff barriers. They were specified in 1985. There are now only 18 of those measures that have not been carried through and, of the agreed measures, 72 per cent. have entered into national law in the various countries of the Community. That is a great achievement.
From the point of view of Britain the creation of the single market is a vital development. More than 50 per cent. of our trade is now with the European Community and that trade will grow. Reference has been made to the fact that our trade balance has suffered since we joined the Community. It has not suffered due to the elimination of barriers but because we have lacked sufficient competitive industrial capacity in our own country. That is something that many noble Lords have been pressing for over the years. There are only two solutions to the problem of our trade deficit with our trading partners in Europe. We must either become more competitive with a larger industrial base or we must re-erect trade barriers. There is no other solution. I am sure that nobody in this House would wish to see the re-erection of trade barriers.
Not only is this an important trading area for Britain, but it has led to a massive degree of inward investment in Britain as a way in which third countries can enter the European trading area. It is the fact that of the total industrial investment in the United Kingdom in the past five years, 19 per cent. of it has come from inward investment. It forms a very substantial part of our total industrial investment and is due to the fact that we are a leading member of the European industrial community. It is also due to the linguistic advantages for the countries which invest here and to the fact that they can have faith in the conditions in which they can operate in this country.
If we were to weaken our connection with the Community, it is obvious that that massive inflow of investment that leads to so much employment in Britain, would be threatened.

573
When looking at the single market we must face the fact that we are living in a competitive world and that competitive pressures are building up outside. Within the whole American continent a single market is being created. We know what is happening in the Pacific area. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us, as a country which has been a prime mover in launching the single market, to see that it goes from strength to strength. I believe there are ways in which this can be achieved. I do not think we can stop simply at the removal of tariff barriers, as were originally removed by the Treaty of Rome, and then of the non-tariff barriers which have now been removed as a result of the Single European Act.
We must also think carefully about convergence; that is, the convergence of the economies of the member countries. I remind your Lordships that the concept of convergence is a British one. I was involved in discussions in the CBI 10 or 15 years ago about what was then known as EMU; economic and monetary union. Even at that date we were discussing that concept. We were then arguing whether EMU should be imposed to start with in the hope that as a result of that imposition countries' economies would come closer together, or whether economies should first converge before we moved to EMU. The British view, which has prevailed in the recent Maastricht negotiations, is that we should have convergence first. That is written into the treaty. Therefore I fail to see why, if there are any criticisms of that concept, they should emanate from this House and indeed from this country. What I believe could be done now in the light of the prolonged recession through which Europe has been passing is to revise the criteria for convergence. However, I have no doubt whatsoever about the necessity for working towards convergence to strengthen the single market.
There is another aspect that I believe needs careful consideration, and that is the relationship between the various currencies of the Community. Reference has been made over the years to the important Select Committee on overseas trade over which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, presided in the mid-1980s. I was a member of that committee and I remember that all the industrial representatives who came before us emphasised one key issue and that was currency stability. They felt that one of the big impediments to the development of our trade was a variable currency. I am not talking about the level of the currency but its stability. If we are to endeavour to build on the strength of the single market we should also find ways in which that stability can be achieved. There are proposals to this end in the Maastricht Treaty but these should also be subject to review.
We need to look at our great achievements as Community members and in particular the achievement of the creation of a single market. We should look forward to building on that in a way which would take account of the deliberations leading up to Maastricht but perhaps would review a number of them. I feel that the role of Britain from now on must
574
be to ensure that we have an integrated outward-looking market subject to democratic decision-making processes. That is the formula we should go for and we can best achieve that by remaining within the Treaty of Maastricht rather than outside it.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I fear my speech will be in the nature of a sorbet interposed between what I can only fairly call the pieces de resistance which have preceded me and the—one hopes—delicious soufflés which are to follow. My speech will be of a modest character. I shall not talk about EMU or the Social Charter or the great issues of foreign policy. Those matters have been admirably covered already by the two speakers who have just preceded me. My own observations will be directed to those, both in this House and outside, who consider that this Treaty of Union is a step of vital constitutional importance for the United Kingdom because, so it is feared, it will alter our laws, our legal system, our conventions and our sovereignty in a radical manner and in a manner that is so radical and so over the top—I hope I may borrow that phrase—as to call for rejection, or at least exceptional treatment.
There are undoubtedly many such thinkers, both in this House and outside. Although most of your Lordships will be familiar with the arguments against the measure, I venture to repeat some of them as other noble Lords may have received, as I have, an extraordinary number of letters from members of the public expressing in dire terms their feeling that this Maastricht Treaty will undermine in a fundamental way the institutions to which they are attached.
I shall confine my remarks to the broad issue of legislation by Brussels; the impact of that legislation upon our sovereignty; and the impact of that legislation upon our institutions. The argument is a fairly simple one, and I speak to a sophisticated audience. Therefore I need not elaborate too much as much of what I wish to say has already appeared in other speeches. I simply wish to underline my main points.
It was Article 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 which made European legislation part of UK law. The vital article which people do not always have in mind is Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome which states that a regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all member states. It has been said by an eminent professor at Cambridge that the word "in" could have changed the course of European history, having terminated the sovereignty of the British Parliament and the supremacy under the constitution of the other national parliaments. The professor expressed those thoughts soon after the article appeared.
This situation was soon perceived by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. It was not long before that court made a number of decisions which stated that European law was now a separate legal order taking precedence over the laws in individual member states. The situation was perceived by lawyers in this country and in this House. In 1972—only 20 years ago—a group of us were consulted on this point

575
and we had no difficulty in saying that UK law was henceforth to be subordinated to European law and that the precedents lay in Luxembourg. The position was, of course, emphasised in a much more picturesque way by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. He illustrated the position and gave it life through the use of a number of picturesque metaphors.
The position was appreciated by our courts. Soon after 1960 a number of decisions were made—I shall not bore your Lordships by recounting them—which accepted the supremacy of European law even over our statutes. Other countries in the Community appreciated the situation, even those with written constitutions who have much greater difficulty than we have in accepting the supremacy of Community law. Some of those countries, for example Germany and Italy, still have difficulties with the concept and have not yet overcome those difficulties.
At any rate all this was well established when we entered the Community in 1973. It must be taken to have been understood by informed people in 1975 when the referendum was held, even if the media did not take pains to point it out.
I turn from the European Communities Act 1972 to the Single European Act which was debated here on 31st July 1986 just before the Summer Recess. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who introduced the Bill stated that it was not giving "new areas of competence". The Act made some references to action as regards the environment and research, but it did not extend the competence of the legislation in Brussels. As the noble Baroness said, it made majority voting possible in a number of areas.
It is worth bearing in mind that the word "union" was used conspicuously in the Single European Act. One or two speakers have mentioned that fact, in a rather throwaway manner, but let us see how prominent it was. The Act used the words:
"to transform relations as a whole among their states into a European Union",
and also:
"resolved to implement this European Union and to invest this Union with the necessary means of action".
Therefore, I am a little surprised that it is thought that the reference here to a union is creating a monstrous new creature not seen or heard of before.
Let us not be misled by the word "union" any more than one should be misled by the word "federalism". There are all kinds of unions all over the world. There are close ones like that with Scotland, loose ones like the Western European Union and any number of contractual unions. There is the Union of European Women and the International Union for Research into Emigrant Insects. The world is full of unions, some of which are strong, interesting and important and some of which are more recreational.
The word "union" appeared throughout the Single European Act. All those concerned took very careful note of that and of the extensions contained in the Single European Act. Your Lordships may remember the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, which he made from just in front of me on these Benches, in which he threatened us with all kinds of dire results if that Act were carried. He said that our
576
sovereignty would be seriously eroded and that Acts of Parliament would be and had been held invalid. Noble Lords may remember his reference to the dolls which are used in certain social work circles for checking on child abuse. My noble and learned friend said that the Single European Act would be a further step towards federal union. Very soon afterwards the Select Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, rightly referred, stated that the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament would be weakened by the extension of qualified majority voting and drew attention to the cases in which that would be so. However, we passed the Act. It was guillotined in the other place and it was passed here in a single day's debate, and that was that.
I believe that the situation was never better put than by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, when speaking in another place. He said that European union is not about some Utopian plan for a European federation but about how best we can, step by step, realistically bring about the aims of the Community. Those were wise words and they are applicable today.
The Single European Act was a logical step from the Treaty of Rome. I suggest to your Lordships that the Maastricht Treaty is a logical step from the Single European Act. It is certainly an extension and a forward move. Of course it is a forward move: we do not want to stop still or to go back. However, I suggest that it is not a revision in a constitutional sense.
Those who are opposed to the treaty have an argument concerning the Single European Act, which we have heard deployed eloquently today, to the effect that the Single European Act is acceptable and we agreed to it in the interests of having a single market, but afterwards it was misused for further centralisation in the direction of "Brusselosis", "Delorism" and it finally burst out in the Maastricht Treaty. It is argued that it is true that the Government managed to have the word "federalism" removed, but the substance remained and we are now faced with a greatly extended centralised organisation.
One has to agree that there is something in that argument. There were some excesses after the Single European Act. There were abuses by Brussels. In the two years after the passing of the Single European Act our Select Committee expressed the fear that the Single European Act was being interpreted too widely. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, wrote to M. Delors in 1989 recording our concern in that respect and in particular that the new Article 100A was being used for environmental and consumer protection and to extend the realm of Brussels. However, whatever the situation after 1986, I believe that far from carrying that process further the Maastricht Treaty has checked or at least stabilised those tendencies. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord the Leader of the House make that point in his opening speech.
I believe it to be generally fair to say that the new express powers given to the European Community by the Maastricht Treaty are definitions and codifications of powers which the Council has been exercising under the general articles (Articles 235 and 100A) already in the legislation in relation, for example, to environment, energy research and consumer protection. In

577
that respect it must be beneficial as diminishing the discretion of Brussels and setting down the position in black and white. As the Select Committee stated:
"new express powers are to be preferred to the old implied powers which were left as a matter of judgment as to what was 'necessary' to achieve a Community objective".
One can argue about the balance between those matters which should be entrusted to majority voting and those which should be kept for unanimous voting. That issue has been argued at great length by our representatives at Luxembourg, Maastricht and Edinburgh. The best that they could achieve is embodied in the Maastricht Treaty. One may disagree with some of the points and wish that other solutions had been reached, but that was a matter for negotiation and of judgment. We must accept the situation, assisted by the efforts of our Select Committee.
There is one small constitutional impact of Maastricht. It may well be the case that having those points in black and white in the Maastricht Treaty will result in a different attitude on the part of the European Court. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, said, previously the court was inclined to give an extended purposive interpretation of the Treaty of Rome because the treaty was drawn up in very general terms and extended the frontiers. However, following Maastricht everything is in black and white. One does not even have to look at the small print. It is all small print-133 pages of it. It may well be that in future the European Court may find itself much more engaged in scrutinising what is in the book rather than trying to find principles and purposes on which to extend its jurisdiction. However, perhaps we shall hear more about that later in the debate.
This is no doubt all very dry and legalistic stuff. After all, a desiccated lawyer is speaking. I shall merely make two brief points on that issue. First, the European Community is a legal structure, based on texts which have been worked out and worked over. Every word has been worked out by lawyers in successive drafts, under successive presidencies, and has been tested by lawyers. If we in the United Kingdom are to be at the heart or at the front—or whatever position one chooses—and if we are to be in the game at all we must be prepared to fight with legal weapons. Let us be sure that we have good lawyers at our disposal. We have—in the Commission, in the court and in the Foreign Office. Let us be sure that we take their advice when we receive it. We can certainly more than hold our own.
Secondly, if we are clear as to the legal arguments, and I hope that we may be before the end of the debate, and if we take the view that there is no great constitutional quantum leap in this treaty, then we can debate the other issues in the treaty on their merits. Those are the great issues of the EMU, the Social Chapter, foreign policy and the home affairs pillar. We are having that debate.
I say no more about that, but I am convinced, and every speech so far today has carried my conviction further and no doubt other speeches will take it even further, that these are matters for parliamentary
578
decision in accordance with our system of parliamentary democracy. If the occasion arises I shall vote accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I rise for a very few moments to support the Government and the Prime Minister and to express my hope that the Bill will find its way on to the statute book in the foreseeable future.
I do not pretend that the Bill is ideal. I do not believe that anyone who has had the privilege of listening to my noble friend Lady Thatcher could have doubted that there were some drawbacks in the Bill. That is not altogether the point. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made an absolutely admirable speech and struck the right note. We are entering into a Europe that is developing and changing all the time. The question is: can we play a part in shaping that growth in development? I was encouraged by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. He gave an admirable, practical, commonsense view to some of the legal provisions. We are not yet defeated on all those points. It is not the time to quit; it is the time to go on. It is the time to see whether we can find friends in Europe, skills in this country, and ways in which we can make it a Europe far closer to the organisation that we want.
I recognise that we are divided. We have been divided all my life. I have lived through parliaments in which great divisions have taken place on foreign and trade policy. I have known all the time that this country wanted to protect its own personal, individual interest, and its pride in its parliament, its rights and authority, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, once said. At the same time, as a small island, its people have wanted to look beyond these shores and to achieve some method for finding markets, trade and investment. If we cease to look beyond these shores, half the public in this country would have to leave. They would have no jobs. Winston Churchill once remarked, "There would be an awful lot of altercation as to which half". We have therefore to look outside this island; we have to look somewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to this matter in his speech. In my youth the Conservative Party in particular was attached to the concept of imperial preference. It wanted to find the answer there. Leo Amery used to fight a great battle. I remember that, having just returned from a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade meeting—I was its first chairman—I attended a Cabinet meeting. I was told that Leo was moving such a resolution. I was asked what I intended to do. I said that I thought that we should oppose it. The Cabinet believed unanimously that I would be defeated, all except Winston, who said, "Let him try". He was a very great man and a very brave one. We did try. My noble friend Lord Aldington and I fought it out in the Blackpool Conference, and we won. Imperial preference was effectively buried. We moved over to a system of wider trade and payments, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—with all the enormous benefits that that has brought. I was very proud to have played a part.

579
Then in Europe we had the Schuman Plan. I was present, although I do not believe that I played a very distinguished part. However, I was brilliantly served by Sir Frank Lee, the Permanent Secretary. He was one of the greatest permanent secretaries a man could ever wish to have. I wanted to take him with me to the Treasury. I believe that history would have been a little different if I had managed that. However, I was not allowed to do so. There was a young man whose name ought to be mentioned because it is never known now. He was very young and junior, and was treated with not too great respect. I refer to Russell Brotherton. He was a brilliant civil servant. In so far as the light of European union was carried at all during that period, it was due to him.
I do not say that I was the only man at that time who stood for Europe. I dare say that one could find members of the Foreign Office now who favoured union with Europe. There was, after all, a massive case for such union on foreign policy. In my generation there had been two wars. As several speakers have mentioned in the debate, at least the thought of war in Europe in that way has disappeared. There was also a great case for trade.
We had those opportunities, but I failed completely. The forces against me were too strong. Under Anthony Eden, the Foreign Office was absolutely determined that we should not go into Europe. The noble Baroness is a Euro-enthusiast compared with Anthony Eden. We have the Single European Act and many other matters which Anthony Eden would not have touched. We could hardly get a hearing in the Cabinet at that time. I therefore make no apology: I failed miserably. I was a young, rather over-promoted (some people thought) President of the Board of Trade and Anthony Eden was at the peak of his powers. He was assumed to be, and was, the heir apparent to Winston Churchill. Therefore I could not achieve such a union.
Harold Macmillan played a magnificent part. He argued the case for Europe. In the early days he was Minister of Housing, and one cannot do much about Europe as Minister of Housing. However he was promoted to Chancellor of the Exchequer and eventually became Prime Minister. In so far as we had a European policy, it was due to Harold Macmillan; but he arrived too late. Europe was already being formed on terms which were rather more provincial and more bureaucratic than we would have wished. However, he did the best he could and we managed to achieve a Europe of some kind with us on the fringes. But the Europe that we wanted was not provincial and bureaucratic. The Europe that we want today, as we wanted then, is outward looking and pledged to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—and we must fight as we always have. We have not lost the battle yet. The only way in which we could lose the battle is to lose this Bill. We must make an effort with it we must pull ourselves together and steel the forces hat we have. We are not without friends in Europe or new allies coming in. I believe that we stand a chance. If we fail, we shall do our best without it, but we may yet succeed.
580
I only wish to say one thing in conclusion. We are not dealing with a lot of Committee points. Underneath and behind all this there is an enormous issue of principle. People talk sometimes on public platforms about unemployment and the recession; they are the terrible, great problems which confront us at present with young men who cannot get jobs and young men who are losing jobs. I sometimes listen and wonder what people will do about them.
There are only two things that can do anything about it, one of which is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to maximise the trade between us and other countries. The other is the huge area of Europe which may not have been as successful as it might have been in the past—and the noble Baroness is perfectly right—but it is still an enormous potential market force. We cannot throw it away, we cannot abandon it at this moment. Therefore, I move that we accept the Bill.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, not every speaker this afternoon has said a great deal about what is in the treaty and the Bill. I shall start, therefore, by saying that, if the Bill were rejected, the United Kingdom would still be a full member of the EC. We should still enjoy tariff-free entry for UK goods throughout the whole EC and EFTA areas and we should still be members of the European Economic Area, the wider free trade group of countries which now exists and includes EFTA. Therefore, all the talk about the rejection of the Bill and the treaty landing us in an economically isolated off-shore area, losing inward investment and so on, is pure fiction. It is much to the credit of the Japanese car companies that they have had the common sense to say that it makes no difference to them whether or not Maastricht is ratified.
Indeed, even if the Bill took us out of the EC and we rejoined EFTA, we should still be members of the European Economic Area. We would enjoy virtually all the benefits of tariff-freedom throughout the area and the single market without, incidentally, the heavy burden of the common agricultural policy on our food prices and labour costs, which have followed our EC membership and been the main cause of the emergence since 1972—and it is only since then—of a trade deficit in manufactured goods.
However, that is not what the treaty and the Bill mean. What they mean is adding a whole series of new and major steps—of course, they are adding them to something—towards a new unitary super state. Those who deny that do not understand what is in the Bill or what is being proposed at present by the continental governments. For example, the treaty's protocol on the third stage of economic and monetary union states that the high contracting parties
"declare the irreversible character of the Community's movement to the third stage of … Monetary Union".
Dr. Kohl himself has added, to put the matter beyond doubt:
"An economic union will survive only if it is based on a political union".
In fact, the treaty massively and indisputably expands the powers—of course, it is extending something that

581
is there already—of the EC institutions and transfers them away from the British Parliament without the agreement of the electorate, on a large number of issues from social policy, for example, right across the field to culture, which is now included.
First, the treaty establishes a European Union, as we know, which:
"marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
That is to say, it is only a stage to further changes later on. The word "union" is plainly used—of course, there are many unions—in this case in the sense of the union of the United States of America or of the Soviet Union. Interestingly enough, the drafter of the treaty in his first few sentences almost verbally copies the first sentences of the constitution of the United States in 1787. I would quote both of them if there were time in this debate.
Secondly, the treaty establishes a citizenship of the new super state. Although Article B of the common provisions section of the treaty only speaks of the "rights and interests" of the citizens, when we read the small print later—and it is worth reading—we find in Part Two, Article 8, that citizens of this union:
"shall be subject to the duties imposed"
by the treaty. The duties, incidentally, which we are imposing on all British subjects, are nowhere expressly defined in the treaty. So, apart from anything else, if we ratify the treaty as it is, we are imposing on all British subjects duties about which they know nothing because they have been neither consulted nor informed. One may say that it is innocuous to do that with rights, but surely it is rather different when one is imposing duties.
Next, the treaty takes us a giant stride from what was always supposed to be—and we have heard a great deal of that today—a purely economic arrangement into foreign policy and security. The Foreign Office popular guide to the treaty tells us that the EC discussions and decisions on foreign policy will be:
"on an intergovernmental basis without the Commission or the Court of Justice having the roles they enjoy under the Treaty of Rome".
Again, however, if we read the treaty we find that in Article J.9:
"The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the … foreign and security field".
The Commission alone, of course, even under this treaty, can initiate legislation. The noble Lord the Leader of the House was plain wrong today on the issue. He did not appear to know that those words were in the treaty.
Then we are told that the dangers of all that will be lessened by the principle of subsidiarity. Again, if we look at the treaty, the effect of that is drastically limited by the opening words:
"In areas which do not fall within [the Commission's] exclusive competence",
then all the rest follows. That means that there is no subsidiarity where the EC claims exclusive competence. That leaves matters very much as they were before we had the principle of subsidiarity, especially
582
as no one now knows how the Court of Justice, which is itself bound by the amended treaty, will interpret the further words:
"only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be … achieved by the member states".
However, when we come to the massive transfer of economic sovereignty to the new union, the language of the treaty is much clearer and more emphatic:
"A European System of Central Banks … and a European Central Bank … shall be established",
and the objective will be the establishment of economic and monetary union ultimately including a single currency. Although the UK has rightly opted out of the third stage beginning in 1999 with the single currency, we shall be bound by those words as well as by Stage 1 and Stage 2, which begins in January 1994, and so be subject to intense pressure to converge, and first and foremost to rejoin the disastrous ERM. It will then be argued that by this treaty we have accepted in principle economic and monetary union, the single currency and the central bank.
The European Central Bank will start operating in 1996, when it takes over from the European Monetary Institute, which precedes it in 1994. The European Central Bank takes over the gold and foreign exchange reserves of the member states. It has the exclusive right to issue notes and to control interest rates and monetary policy. It is bound not to take instructions from anybody but itself. Its 15 members will be exclusively:
"persons of recognised standing and experience in monetary or banking matters".
So in this modern Utopia we are all to be governed not by philosopher kings but, it seems, by unaccountable banker kings. The golden rule expressly laid down for those banker kings will be to maintain price stability and sound finance, with no reference whatever to employment or output, but only to the notorious and unworkable strait-jacket of fixed exchange rates, a budget deficit of only 3 per cent. of GDP, a public debt of 60 per cent. of GDP and a rate of inflation (so-called) of only 1 per cent. above that of the three best performers.
Those criteria would mean in practice that they were rarely carried out and thus enforced by bankers, extreme deflationary policies, and, in the light of all 20th-century experience, very high unemployment throughout every country submitting to them. The ERM has been merely a foretaste of it. In the UK's two years in the ERM our unemployment rose by over 1 million to its present 3 million. Under the present banker-led deflationary policies of the ERM there are now 3 million unemployed in the UK, in France, in Italy and in Spain, and 17 million in the whole EC; and the rate is still rising steadily in the first year of the single market.
On top of all that the treaty tells us—some noble Lords may have missed the joys of this if they have not read so far—that many of the economic edicts are irreversible and irrevocable. For example, it speaks of irrevocably fixed exchange rates. That to me is the language of Marxism, where one was always told that everything is irreversible and irrevocable.
Surely one precious virtue of the British Constitution—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord

583
Blake, will agree with me on this point—has always been that what Parliament does it can undo. Imagine if, instead, M. Delors had descended from the mountain with his tablets of stone and told us that the poll tax legislation was irreversible. Indeed, the Government are even reversing legislation (in the field of criminal justice) in the very Session in which it came into effect.
Irrevocable or not, to hand over control of economic and social policy to a group of unaccountable bankers is as if one were to give the chiefs of staff the power to declare war; or indeed the Board of the Inland Revenue the power to decide rates of taxation, which I do not believe noble Lords opposite would wish to do. When one transfers those powers to bodies outside the country, of course it amounts to a sweeping transfer of sovereignty from the electorate, from the people. Taken together with all the other transfers of power—and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that there were plenty in the two previous treaties—this treaty, if carried out, would leave this country no longer a fully independent self-governing nation.
Even so, all this, as the treaty says, is only a stage —the treaty says "a new stage"—and a step towards the creation of a new superpower with a strong centralised government. It is widely recognised as such on the Continent, where the next step in centralisation is being eagerly prepared now. We deceive ourselves if we deny that.
What after all (the question is seldom asked) is the purpose of the whole of this vast bureaucratic centralising operation? That question always takes me back to listening to M. Jean Monnet in the long conversation expounding his plans in 1953 and again in 1962. For Monnet and his disciples only one thing mattered; namely, the avoidance of another Franco-German war. That was to be achieved by "tying down" (that was the expression then) Germany in a new centralised state which M. Monnet and his supporters thought could best be done by disguising it all at first as a technical and economic experiment. Fear of a resurgent Germany was the basic driving force of the whole operation; and it still is today. The motive was a worthy, perhaps even noble, one. But the practical assumptions on which the remedy was based were, I have always suspected, highly questionable, if not wholly mistaken. First, the rise of a new militaristic dictatorship in Germany has been one of the least likely turn of events in the post-1945 world. Secondly, if such an aggressive German dictatorship were to emerge, do we really think that it would be deterred by a paper treaty (a scrap of paper) or any sort of bureaucratic strait-jacket? Arguably therefore the whole of M. Monnet's experiment, well meant as it was, was either unnecessary or futile.
The further irony of it all is that, just as Hitler (which is what was feared) was brought to power by a rise in German unemployment from 1.5 million in 1939 to 6 million in 1933, a new extremist Germany, if ever it came about, would be likely to be produced by exactly the heavy unemployment which the policies now enshrined in EMU and the extreme deflationary
584
policies of the Bundesbank would be most likely to generate. The creation of a new superpower, on the evidence of history, is no guarantee of peace.
Yet all of us know (I believe that there will be agreement on this point) that what the majority of the British public want—and every poll shows it—is not a new superpower, but close political and economic relations with all the countries of Western and Eastern Europe, combined with the retention of last-resort independence as a nation in our own hands. The British people want to govern themselves. For that reason, in my judgment, Parliament has no moral or other right to deprive the British people of their existence as a fully independent self-governing nation without even genuinely consulting them. The issue now before us is that of a far greater constitutional change, taking the three treaties together, than the reforms of 1832 or of 1910–11, which required two general elections conducted on the specific issue of those reforms. It is not the sovereignty of Parliament that is now at stake, as so many people have said. It is the sovereignty of the people. Parliament only has legitimacy and authority because it is representative of the people. John Locke put the point in rather illuminating words:
"The legislature cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. For, it"—
the legislature—
"being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it to others".
We all know that this issue was hardly discussed at all at the last general election. In my view therefore the case is overwhelming here, as in so many other countries, for a full, popular referendum in which the British people are told plainly and honestly what is the real choice before them.
This House—rightly, I believe—claims, among other things, to be the guardian of the constitution. In hard fact nothing could raise its reputation higher with the British public than if this House insisted that the people must be directly consulted before this treaty is ratified.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Parkinson: My Lords, in the spring of 1972 I was invited to go to Germany and speak in six cities about the British attitude to the Community. I was invited as a new Member of Parliament and I chose the subject, which had a certain novelty at the time, of losing an empire and finding a role. I promised myself that during the summer I would write my speech. But the morning came when I was due to fly to Germany. I got on the aeroplane, produced my notepaper, and started to write, at which point an American sitting next to me noticed the House of Commons paper, and said, "Are you a Member of Parliament?" I got off the aeroplane an hour later having lost the empire but not having found a role and facing the prospect of making six speeches throughout Germany.
The role that I envisaged for Britain was as a Member of the Community and as a staunch and vital part of the NATO alliance. My speeches were on that theme. Throughout the whole of my parliamentary career, as a new Member, supporting the original Act, campaigning for a "Yes" in the referendum campaign,

585
supporting the Single European Act, and as a Minister in a number of departments going to Brussels to try to make the free movement of goods, people and services a reality, I retained my enthusiasm for the Community. I still do so. There were many reasons why I was enthusiastic but three in particular were important to me. They were touched on by my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft in his excellent speech. At the heart of them all was the ambition to create a truly common market within the European Community.
I believe passionately that the open trading system is the great guarantor of prosperity. It ensures that opportunity will become available to many peoples. The Community seemed to me to offer a chance for 12 large countries to work together within a framework and create a genuine common market based on real free trade principles. Then, using that as a working example of the open trading system in action, I hoped that the Community would become a great force for good in the wider world, showing that the principles of free trade worked and that the Community as a working model was one which should be emulated and supported. Finally, I hoped that the Community of the Twelve would become a much larger Community; that it would not become exclusive; and that it would spread throughout Europe. It always seemed to me very pretentious for 12 countries to claim the title of "The European Community" in a continent which included many more than 12 countries.
I have not changed my attitude to the Community at all. But I still have very substantial reservations about the treaty which we are in the process of ratifying. I should like to explain why to noble Lords.
It seems to me that we need not speculate about whether economic and monetary union, a single currency and a single central bank will be good or bad for us. We do not need to speculate. We do not need to stare into the crystal ball. We have already had experience. The ERM is the first step towards monetary union and it has failed us twice already.
We joined it informally in the late 1980s. We tied our economic policy to Germany's. The Germans at that time were in or beginning to be in a recession; they needed lower interest rates. We were in danger of overheating our economy; we needed high interest rates to cool it off. We took our interest rates down; and the recession, the overheating, the deficit and the problems with which we have been coping for a number of years now stem from that decision to follow the policies which were right for Germany at the time when they were wrong for us.
In 1990 we joined the ERM. Germany shortly afterwards re-unified and for its own good reasons —I do not criticise the Germans for it—needed high interest rates. We were in a recession. We took our interest rates up, sustained them at a higher level than was needed and prolonged and deepened the recession. Once again, what was right for Germany was wrong for us.
We need not speculate either about a single currency and a single central bank, and the dangers of adopting both too soon. We can look at East Germany. There is a working model of 18 million
586
people who are part of a country that is the strongest country in Western Europe and who have adopted a hard currency and imposed it on a weak economy. We can see how the policies that were good for western Germany have caused chaos in eastern Germany. We can see the dangers of adopting a single currency before one is ready for it.
Eighteen million East Germans have caused enormous damage to the West German economy. But even more important from our point of view is that they have also wrecked the ERM and shown the dangers of the sort of policy that this treaty envisages becoming the norm for all the countries of Europe. If 18 million East Germans can wreck the first step towards economic and monetary union, how are we to cope with Greece, Portugal, Spain and southern Italy, in all of which the standard of prosperity has to be raised to the level of the highest before there can be monetary union? Who will provide the resources which will be needed for transfer to the poorer countries? Certainly the poorer countries are enthusiastic about receiving them. But I have not heard anybody in the more prosperous countries explaining to their peoples that they will be the ones who have to fund that transfer. Therefore economic and monetary union, which are at the heart of the treaty, offer the potential for being divisive and disruptive and creating disillusion rather than harmony within the Community.
The Community is becoming, by the detailed structure which it has set up for itself, ever more exclusive. It is almost impossible to envisage any countries other than Austria, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland (which turned down the opportunity) qualifying for membership. I have taken part in discussions in the Community in which it was agreed that there could be no question of taking into the Community in the foreseeable future any country which will be a dependant and not a contributor. By its nature, the more tightly the Community draws itself together, the more exclusive it makes itself and the less it has the potential for becoming a truly European Community.
Again, as the Community develops in the way in which the other 11 members want—with identical wages, hours of work and social provision—the whole concept of comparative advantage, which is at the heart of the open trading system, is being abandoned. The argument is that we cannot trade with each other unless we have the same wages and social conditions. But where does that leave the rest of the world? I see the treaty as a major preparation for trade wars and protectionism. I do not see it as a step towards an open trading system and internationalism.
Finally, I judge the Community by its actions and attitudes. It has not been the great proponent of the open trading system which my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft outlined in his extremely moving speech. It has been a major break from the movement towards free trade. At the moment the agricultural policy—that ultra protectionist device which is the jewel in the Community's crown—is being used as a way of preventing the completion of the most important trade round into which the world has entered; that is, a

587
round in which we are going to extend to trade in services and agricultural products the rules which have been so welcome and helpful in the field of manufactured goods.
Even the most enthusiastic supporters of the treaty say—my noble friend Lord Carrington in a splendid speech made the point—that much of it will not come about in the foreseeable future. It is a bad basis for signing a treaty when one's basic motivation is that one does not believe that it will be implemented. There has never been a case of a European Act being put on the statute book which has not been interpreted far more broadly than those who signed it originally expected. The Single European Act was a case in point. Yet we are signing an infinitely more fundamental and radical Act in the vain hope that it will not be implemented. That is a very unsatisfactory way in which to proceed.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is my privilege and duty, on behalf of the Whole House, to offer congratulations to my noble friend Lord Parkinson on the speech which he has just made. It was a speech as eloquent as we have come to expect and, if I may also say so, as unsurprising as I have come to hear. He was not the first former chairman of the Conservative Party to speak in the debate. He was preceded by my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Thorneycroft, each of whom made splendid contributions to our proceedings.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carrington will forgive me if I pay an especially warm tribute to the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. I was brought up, from the days when I first thought of going to the Treasury, to have overwhelming admiration for my predecessor as Chancellor, my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. By his resignation in 1958 he proclaimed himself immensely sound on money. I know that my noble friend Lady Thatcher joins with me in expressing that admiration for him. However, my noble friend Lady Thatcher and I part company when I go on to say that I also regarded my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft as being immensely sound on Europe as well.
There is a great difference between the world in which my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft fought so valiantly for our early accession to the Community and the world in which we live today. The world in which we live today makes common assumptions about the shape of the world economy and the nature of its key players. One of the most important key players is that which we know as the European Community—the Community for which my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft worked so hard.
There are assumptions made in regard to the membership of the Community—a Community playing a part not just in trade, but also in the search for partnership and foreign policy. It is a Community playing a part in creating a world in which a single European currency can find a place. It is assumed that within that Community Britain's position is to be taken for granted. True, we were not founder members. But at least since 1962 we have been
588
committed, under the leadership of six Prime Ministers starting with Harold Macmillan, to effective membership of the Community. If those countries around the world were to be told that there was a serious risk that our country intended to diminish its commitment to the Community, they would rub their eyes in disbelief at such a resurgence of national eccentricity, hardly capable of believing that we were once again going to make the mistake of failing to see and understand where our true interests lie.
What are they to make of this debate? Is the Maastricht Treaty really to be seen as wreaking a disastrous change in Britain's relationship with the Community? Why? How? It was negotiated on the basis of a mandate overwhelmingly endorsed by Parliament before and after negotiation; it was overwhelmingly endorsed by Parliament before and after a general election in which, for better or for worse, ratification was common ground for all parties.
My noble friend Lord Thatcher—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thatcher—I hesitate to quote Lord Dicey on that—commented on the fact that the treaty was endorsed by less than half the House in the other place. That is not necessarily of huge constitutional significance. My noble friend will remember that the Bill to enact the war crimes legislation, which was forced through this House against its will, was similarly endorsed in the other place by less than half the House.
The point is that the treaty has now been endorsed not just by some member states, but by every one of them. One is driven to ask why the treaty is so wrong. What can possibly justify the ferocity of the opposition? Most important of all, what is the alternative? If we reject it, what will be the basis of Britain's relationship with the Community? How will that relationship be achieved?
To the first question two answers are suggested. First, that Maastricht and the European Community thereafter poses new, special threats to sovereignty which justify the impassioned speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, in which he was saying thus far and no further. But I was struck by an observation made by Judge David Edward of the European Court in Edinburgh last autumn when he said:
"If sovereignty is about statehood, then the statehood of the member states is not in issue. If sovereignty is about powers, then powers are already shared. If sovereignty is about practical independence, then no state in Western or Eastern Europe can claim to have it".
So I do not believe that that argument is decisive.
Then it is said, looking at it in retrospect, that some years ago we took a disastrously wrong turning in the Single European Act. Even my noble friend Lady Thatcher has deployed that case. But four years ago, four years after the Single European Act, she and I worked together to produce the Conservative Party manifesto with which we fought the 1989 European elections. Four years after the Single European Act, 14 years after we together got on the train under the leadership of Edward Heath, and 36 years after the

589
quote from Winston Churchill which appealed to my noble friend Lord Tonypandy, times have changed. In that manifesto of course we endorsed the Single European Act specifically and wholeheartedly and we went on to do so in the context of this statement:
"An active and wholehearted approach to the Community has breathed new life into our partnership with our neighbours. Our present and our future lie with them".
How come the change between then and now? The truth is that the opponents of Maastricht are now declining to accept the common institutions, the common European Community law, the common European Court of Justice, which were part of the common ground which they endorsed even four years ago. The European Court of Justice is the same today as it was when my noble friend and I endorsed the Single European Act and took it through Parliament under a guillotine. But now today it is wrong apparently to strive for almost anything at a European level if that involves a conscious limitation on national self-government. The tragedy is that the Euro-sceptics have moved from practical politics to ideological purism and into a position which, alas, is now one approaching deep hostility to the essence of the Community itself.
The dividing line has returned to the same issue that divided this country two and three decades ago. I had a massive feeling of déjà vu as I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, which appeared to me to be unchanged from those to which my noble friend Lord Rippon and I listened night after night after night after night during the passage of the European Communities Bill. The sadness is that the speech made by my noble friend Lady Thatcher was almost more fundamentalist than any of those to which we had to listen during that debate in 1972; almost more fundamentalist than any of those to which we had to listen during the passage of the Single European Act which I was glad to take through the House under her leadership.
The real question is this: does sovereignty depend upon our capacity to make rules in this national Parliament or upon our ability to maximise our influence as a nation in the world? It is easy for Robinson Crusoe to be "monarch of all he surveys"; it is much more difficult for him to persuade anyone else to take him seriously. How, if we now alone reject the Maastricht Treaty, are we to breathe new life into our partnership with our neighbours? And if we are not to do that, how else are we to manage this crucial relationship? How in particular are we to do that if this nation now commits the gross breach of faith that would be involved in repudiation of a treaty to which the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have put their names on behalf of this nation with the full authority of this Parliament?
What is to be our new position? And how are we to achieve it? Are we now to set about renegotiating a wholly new status? I see the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, nodding his head at that question. He knows a thing or two about renegotiation within the Community. Are we to be in or out; or are we to be half-way between, still trying, as so often and so sadly, to go on having our cake and eating it?
590
Membership of the Community is not like membership of UNESCO, a kind of optional extra, in which our absence is, incidentally and crucially, fortified by the partnership of the United States. Membership of the Community is the status now being sought for its positive value by all our former EFTA partners and by all the central European countries. Are we now to pass them as they come on the way in, while we make our own way tragically to the exit? How can we expect to negotiate a better deal on the basis of repudiation of the treaty than ever we secured on the basis of participation? Just how far can we sensibly go on trying the patience of our "partners" and at the same time destroying all the influence we might hope to have as a partner in playing the game?
The case for Maastricht is the case for realism and modernity as opposed to the case for sentimental illusion. As Henry Kissinger put it 11 years ago:
"Only"—
and I repeat "only"—
"as one of the leaders of Europe [can] Britain continue to play a major role on the world scene".
To reject Maastricht would be to choose exactly the opposite: to become a less powerful country against the backdrop of a Europe which certainly would not be broken if we say "No". Euro-sceptics, alas, believe that we still have the power to halt the Community, to disintegrate it, by refusing Maastricht. That is the greatest delusion of all. Our Community partners, and the rest of Europe joining them, will go ahead without us in some form, at some time. To say "No" to Maastricht would be to ensure the destruction of our chance, in Henry Kissinger's words, of continuing,
"to play a major role on the world scene".
When my noble friend Lady Thatcher and I wrote in that election manifesto four years ago that we were seeking an active and wholehearted approach to the Community, that such an approach had breathed new life into our partnership with our neighbours and that our present and our future lay with them, we spoke true words indeed. If they were true then, they are a great deal truer today, and I commend them to the House.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, having followed the discussions in another place and the debate today it is my intention to support the Government in the stages of this Bill through the House. And in the fewest possible words, but inevitably with a broad brush, I want to say why.
Between 1947 and 1952 I was closely involved, as an official, in the development of British policy towards Europe, from the Treaty of Paris, through the Marshall Plan, the Coal and Steel Community, Western European Union, and NATO, and again, between 1956 and 1960, with the failure of our negotiations for an industrial free trade area, the first French veto, the negotiation of EFTA and Euratom.
The Attlee Government, and incidentally their advisers, were criticised at the time by the Conservative Opposition, and even more strongly since by some contemporary historians, for failing to join the European Coal and Steel Community. But when the Churchill Government came to power, they

591
proved even less enthusiastic about European integration than their predecessor. The reason is a simple one. Joining these communities involved a commitment to work for a federal Europe and there was then only a tiny minority of members of any political party for accepting such a commitment. That was natural. Commonwealth ties and Commonwealth trade were still strong. The sterling area was in operation. The first priority was to ensure that the United States remained committed to the defence of Western Europe and to the support of the European economy. I was certainly an Atlanticist at that time and I still am. But our close relations with the United States and Canada have not been affected by our membership of the European Community. I feel sure that they will continue to be close, though they may adapt to the changing situation on both sides of the Atlantic.
In practice we participated very closely in the working of the European Coal and Steel Community. Indeed, it would not have worked without us. Then in 1954 the six entered into negotiations for closer economic union at Messina at which we had a representative. But he was withdrawn and we left the six to draft the Treaty of Rome. I was in Washington at the time and I have never come across a valid explanation of the reasons for withdrawal. With hindsight, it was a blunder. I am not saying that an agreement which we could have accepted would have been reached. The agricultural issue would almost certainly have seen to that as it had already done in our efforts to negotiate an industrial free trade area in Europe. But we might have averted the worst excesses of the common agricultural policy. In the meantime we had negotiated EFTA—admittedly a second best —but a useful one, which has survived to come to terms with the EC.
As time went on the alternatives to our joining Europe faded. Commonwealth ties loosened. An Atlantic free trade area, once mooted, was an illusion. And we joined the Community. However, our economic and industrial performance deteriorated and we sank towards the bottom of the European league and lagged far behind Japan and the United States. So the prospects of our doing well on our own dimmed. Finally, we signed the Single European Act and then we came to Maastricht.
It is my impression that Maastricht was a high tide in the movement towards closer union in Europe. Since its signature—here I echo the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with whose speech I very much agree—there has been an ebb in Germany, in France and of course in the United Kingdom. Now it seems most likely that it will in fact be modified in practice by interpretation and that the application of many of its provisions will be governed by the development of the concept of subsidiarity now enshrined in the treaty. Subsidiarity is a horrible word, but it has a respectable pedigree. Its basic meaning is clear. But of course there has already been a great deal of discussion, and there is already voluminous literature about its application and effect. I am sure that there will be more. But that is a matter for negotiation. It is a mistake to underrate the potential of subsidiarity.
592
I conclude that we must be in that negotiation, and to do so we must ratify the treaty as it stands. Historical analogues are dangerous, but I suggest that we are in the same sort of position now as we were at the time of the Messina conversations, only in a much more critical sense. Now we have certainly nowhere else to go. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I have yet to hear a convincing case for an alternative. The world is coalescing into economic blocks and even if the Uruguay Round can be completed, as it really must be, the world will continue to coalesce.
There is a free-trade area about to be concluded in North America. There is likely to be one before long in South America. The countries of the Far East and Australasia are increasingly trading with each other and present a formidable threat to European trade. Our economic prospects do not augur well for survival on the fringes of an integrating Europe. Successive British governments have been accused of missing the bus in Europe. In my view, in the early stages there was not a bus at the door. Now we are on the bus, although possibly still a strap hanger, and we must not try to get off.
I am not in favour of a referendum. In addition to the case which has been made against it in principle, there is the consideration so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that votes in a referendum are likely to be swayed more by the opinion of the government of the day than by the merits of the question.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Pym: My Lords, now that technology has shrunk the world and made the whole of mankind interdependent, there are very substantial constraints on every nation's sovereignty. I believe that tendency will continue. A balance has to be struck between the conflicting demands of national sovereignty and international responsibility; the first of those being something people understand very well while the second is a new dimension at least in scale and scope.
The most dramatic current expression of this conflict or paradox is in the rise of nationalism which is so widespread and visible today. Nationalism is a human, natural emotion, but it is not by itself a basis for international policy in this now interdependent world.
It was never going to be easy to build supranational co-ordination in Europe because of the differences of culture and tradition among the nations concerned. In our own lifetime the very different experiences on either side of the Channel, particularly in war, have made mutual understanding between Britain and the rest especially difficult. The contrast between our parliamentary histories and practices is especially sharp. Nevertheless, we all share the awful horrors of two wars. They were quite enough to inspire all countries to find new ways of working together and agreeing never again to resort to war to settle their differences. That process was made easier by the Cold War, which provided a common enemy and made people realise that security is indivisible. The Cold

593
War is over now, thanks in large measure to NATO which has been a triumph of international co-operation, providing a lesson that we must never forget.
Today we need to fashion with our allies a new foreign and security policy to meet the totally different threats and dangers that face us and we need to fashion with our partners a political and economic strategy that is commensurate with the challenges of new competition from the other side of the world. That can only be done on a continental scale and, at any rate for the next few years, Maastricht is the basis for it. Yes, of course, it is a compromise—what else could it be? The treaty is not exactly what we would have liked and other co-signatories feel the same, but John Major and Douglas Hurd negotiated a treaty that had all the features and attributes mentioned at the outset by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and which, obviously, I shall not repeat now.
In the months of debate on this Bill far more attention has been given to the critics than to the creators. "What are the critics' alternatives?" has been asked already. They have not got any. No other treaty is negotiable with our partners—it just is not available —and some kind of semi-isolation is clearly not an option. Indeed, a failure to ratify would do our business and commerce immense damage, with serious consequences for employment prospects, and the City of London would surely lose its role as financial leader.
We missed the boat in Europe before by standing aloof when we ought to have been involved from the beginning. That is the main reason why our influence there has not been as powerful or effective as it could and should have been. For goodness sake, do not let us make that mistake again. In my view, the sooner we ratify the treaty and occupy one of the centre seats of the Community in a really meaningful way, the sooner will British influence be exerting its full weight.
I think that there are three overwhelming reasons why British weight, in a European context, needs to be pulled hard at this time. The first is because the end of the Soviet empire has left the whole of central and eastern Europe in a state of appalling economic deprivation and much of it in a state of political chaos or anarchy. The rest of the developed world finds it difficult to imagine, let alone to grasp, this reality. Surely the aim of all Europeans should be to bring together all the distinctive and diverse attributes, resources and talents of our continent into a working association. That is a colossal task and it is something the British are good at.
The second reason is that the countries around the Pacific Rim are reacting to the technological revolution with such speed and expertise that they present a wholly new economic challenge to the Western world. If Europe fails to get its act together, we shall surely find out painfully what it means to be uncompetitive.
The third reason is because we are opposed to the concept of federalism. As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said, that is not the right way ahead and we must see that it does not happen. I should like to
594
endorse wholly the most admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Carrington and the concept that he produced of the conceptual and pragmatic approaches. He is absolutely right.
This country took perhaps its most crucial decision of the century when it passed the European Communities Act 21 years ago. Since then we have had the Single European Act which was passed, as we have heard, with comparatively little controversy. Now we have this European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Apart from the debates on Maastricht in this House, another place debated it before the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went to the final negotiations and again afterwards. It debated it before and after the election, and the Government had strong majorities on all occasions.
The passage of this Bill in another place has just been completed. Its opponents there did all that they could to frustrate it, and no one complained about that. It is the way of the House of Commons. But it has now passed the Bill. The Bill survived the sustained onslaught. We shall see of course, but I believe that your Lordships are of a similar mind. That would certainly be consistent with the decisions of this House on the European Communities Act and the Single European Act. I very much hope that we can make progress with our consideration of this Bill in a similar timescale as with the last two so that ratification is possible this summer, because I see much damage arising from delay. Apart from any other consideration, that is another strong point against a referendum.
After ratification, I hope that the Community will stop being so concerned about itself. I hope that it will stop being so egocentric and that it will become much more positive and constructive about the way forward for the whole of Europe. I am sure that we here in Britain have a major role to play there. To bring together the remarkable variety of nations that comprises Western, Central and Eastern Europe into some sort of harmony is a huge task, but surely that is the strategic objective. The European Community, working at its best and at its most effective, undoubtedly has a vital contribution to make towards that objective. But, in my view, it is even more important for its thinking and policy making to be outward looking, encompassing the whole of Europe and able to meet the formidable challenges from the wider world.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, what we have seen in another place and no doubt will see in your Lordships' House is an attempt to fight once again the battles that were fought and won and lost many a year ago. I hope that we shall soon be able to put this behind us and turn our attention to the more pressing problems of the British economy and of British society which have been too long neglected in these sterile arguments.
I have always said, and I repeat it again today, that the importance of the Maastricht Treaty has been greatly exaggerated both by its supporters and by its opponents. That is not a popular view because one thing that politicians thrive on is controversy and to

595
deprive people of their grievances is the worst service that one can do for them. Nevertheless, most of the arguments which are now advanced against the Maastricht Treaty relate not to the treaty as it was finally signed, but to the earlier ideas which were in circulation at the time of the Rome Summit in October 1990. If I may be forgiven for saying this, that was the summit that led to the political assassination of my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher, now my noble friend Lady Thatcher, so that is the date.
The draft of the treaty was then modified, first under the Luxembourg presidency and then under the Dutch presidency. What was left was largely emasculated in the negotiations leading up to the actual signing of the treaty at Maastricht in the winter of 1991. It is in this sense that the Prime Minister's comment when he came back from Maastricht that he had won "game, set and match" needs to be seen. It would perhaps have been a rather more accurate description of the situation if he had said:
"A poor thing, but mine own",
for what has finally emerged marks no great step forward. For the most part, it simply consolidates progress already made and there is little in it that could not have been done under the terms of the Single European Act. I have spelt this out in detail in debates in your Lordships' House previously and I do not propose repeating the argument again, but the treaty does bring out into the public domain many things which hitherto were done in private. It gives clear and legal status to many things that were done on an informal basis. It fills in a great deal of detail, and it avoids the need for a vast amount of subordinate legislation. On that basis, it is a useful treaty; it is a valuable treaty; and I believe that it is very important that we should ratify it.
There is no denying the fact that there exists a strong anti-European element in this country. One can call it by whatever sweet-smelling name one likes, but at heart it is essentially an anti-European sentiment. It is, I believe, very much a minority view, but the views are strongly held; they are sincerely held; and they are deeply entrenched. If one looks at the Cabinet minutes of 1962, which were recently opened, one can see how concerned then were the government of the day when the first decision was taken to apply to join the European Community. Those attitudes have their root in the fact that it is more than a thousand years since this country was seriously invaded. During that vast span of time, this country has developed a culture, a set of attitudes, an outlook and policies very much of its own. It has been cut off from the mainstream of development of thought and policy in continental Europe.
The English Channel—even the name is a significant one—has always been a psychological as well as a physical barrier. A gradual change in attitudes is taking place, but it is a traumatic process, and it is associated largely with the move from one generation to another. I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Carrington said about the difference between conceptualists and pragmatists, but I believe that there tends also to be a difference between generations.
596
One can, in fact, identify three generations: there is a generation which was born, which grew up, which acquired its ideas and its outlook, and which made its political reputation before we ever joined the European Community. People of that generation still hanker after Britain as it existed in Victorian times, and still exists in their imagination—a time when Britain really was great; when Britannia truly ruled the waves; when British industry dominated the world; when the absolute tenet of British national sovereignty was the hallmark of our independence and greatness. But of course it is only nostalgia: a figment of the imagination; those days have long since gone; they will never return. Even in this first generation there were people who were not cabin'd or confined within the accepted dogma of their generation. Harold Macmillan, who first applied to join the Community, was one such. My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, who spoke so magnificently earlier, was another. So was Ted Heath, who took us into the Community in 1973.
We then have another generation of people who were born and grew up before we joined the Community but who have made their political careers only since we became members of the Community. They are torn between, on the one hand, their upbringing and the attitudes imbued in them in their formative years, and, on the other, the stark realities of our present predicament which they have to face in the political lives that they have chosen to live. I suspect, with respect, that our own Prime Minister is very much cast in that mould. Nothing else could explain an oft repeated ambition to be "at the heart of Europe" while at the same time opting out of some of the most important developments in the European Community.
I am not arguing whether it was right or wrong to opt out. That is not my point. What I am trying to do is to find a logical explanation for the way that people behave. In many respects, what we now have is a generation sitting on the fence with its head pointing in one direction and its heart in another.
Frankly, I have little hope that this, our present generation, will solve our problems. It is a complete delusion to suppose that increased integration in the Community will not go ahead: still less that it can be stopped. There are people in this country who argue —no doubt there are some in your Lordships' House —that what we really want is a free trade area, and that we need to develop the European Community in that direction. The European Community never has been just a free trade area. It is not today just a free trade area. It never will be just a free trade area. If we wish to remain a member of the Community, exercising a full and proper influence, we will have to accept that. If one cares to read the Act of Accession appended to the Treaty of Accession, one will find that clearly we are, in that treaty, committed to the policies of the Community, not just to a free trade area.
There is no doubt that the present atmosphere is influenced greatly by the recession through which we are now passing, or out of which we may indeed be passing. One sees that clearly if one looks back over time. When I launched the single market programme

597
in 1985, that was a period of great faith in the future, a period of optimism, a period of economic expansion. It was a period of hope. As time has gone on, those hopes have faded. They still existed at the time when the Maastricht process was started in October 1990, but by the time it was finished and the treaty was signed, the storm clouds were already gathering. That, more than anything, explains the history of that period. From that point of view, perhaps the most important provision in the treaty is the provision that another intergovernmental conference will be convened in 1996. The hope is that by 1996 we, and the world as a whole, will be out of the recession, and, if we are, the world will look very different from how it looks today.
We will of course ratify the Maastricht Treaty. Of that I have no doubt. It is, as I have argued all along, a useful treaty but of little fundamental consequence. It dots the i's; it crosses the t's; and it sets out for all to read and, for those who will, to understand the policies to which the Community has long since been committed—indeed ever since Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, as she then was, signed with her own hand the Solemn Declaration on European Union at Stuttgart on 19 June, 1983 which committed the Community and this country to economic and monetary union, to social policy, to economic cohesion and to a host of other matters she and her supporters, I gather, now oppose.
I have a copy of the Solemn Declaration. I shall not read the whole of the document, which is a most fascinating one. However, I shall quote one or two passages from it. Mrs. Thatcher and the Heads of Government committed themselves,
"to create a united Europe".
That, if I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, predates the Single European Act. They were determined to work together,
"to promote… the European Social Charter"—
I wondered where the term "Social Charter" had come from and found that to be the origin—and to develop,
"a European Social policy",
to consolidate progress,
"towards European Union in both the economic and political fields".
My noble friend Lady Thatcher is much more radical than me. I always argued—and I was unpopular in the Commission for doing so—that we ought to complete the economic agenda and leave the political agenda for a future generation. But here we have my noble friend wishing to consolidate progress towards European Union in both the economic and political fields.
Under the banner of "development of Community policies" they stressed the importance of—and I pick out five items—
"convergence of economic development; effective action in the social field; consolidating the EMS",
and making
"progress towards Economic and Monetary Union; the development of an industrial strategy at Community level",
which I am sure will be of great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who has a Question on that point on the Order Paper tomorrow. I hope that the Government will have read the Solemn Declaration
598
before producing the Answer—they will be some of the first people who ever have read it. Finally, they stressed the importance of,
"The development of the regional and social policies of the Community… in particular the transfer of resources to less prosperous regions".
On a purely personal note, which has nothing to do with what I am saying, we do not reach the internal market, as we then called it—that is the Single Market —until page 14 of the English translation; in other words, it was then regarded as a matter of small importance. It has always been my great pride that I succeeded in promoting it from the humble position that it occupied under Mrs. Thatcher's Solemn Declaration on European Union to becoming the flagship of the enterprise.
When my noble friend reported that to the House of Commons —and I shall repeat what she said in full because she said very little, although that is not for me to comment upon—she said:
"Together with other members of the Council, I signed the declaration on European union. We strongly support the objectives of greater political co-operation which are set out in this declaration, and we welcome the reaffirmation of the wider objectives of the European Community".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/83; col. 146.]
Of course, the "wider objectives" are those which I have read out.
In case the Opposition is taking any pleasure from what I am saying, perhaps I may refer them to what was said by Mr. Michael Foot, then Leader of the Labour Party. Mr. Foot, of course, was well known for his extensive use of words and for very little content in them. On this occasion he excelled himself because he had very few words and no content whatever. He said:
"the best way to describe the outcome of the Stuttgart Council in general is that … it is extremely disappointing".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/83; col. 146.]
I hope that the Opposition will remember that when it comes to deal with the Social Charter.
When progress is resumed once we are out of the recession we would hope that we shall make progress with the other members of the Community. Quite frankly, the option which is sometimes put forward —that we can negotiate some special status in the Community which does not commit us to full Community membership—is one which simply does not exist. I hope only that during our present generation we shall succeed in doing more than just bumbling along on the fringes of the Community. I hope very much that we do better than that because our history gives us no encouragement. In economic terms we have fallen steadily behind since 1945, incapable of managing our economic affairs with any degree of competence but unwilling to merge our destiny in a greater and more hopeful European entity.
I now turn to the three generations which I referred to earlier. The third generation is one which will soon make its mark; namely, the generation of young people born after 1973, who have never known a time when we have not been members of the European Community and who, I suspect, will find great difficulty in understanding what the present commotion is all about. They will begin to exercise their

599
influence not in this century but early in the next. It is in them that our future hopes must lie. The best service that we can do today and tomorrow is to keep that hope alive. We must ensure that when we hand over the conduct of affairs to them it will not be a damnosa hereditas; that they will still have open to them the opportunity of doing much better for themselves, for their fellow citizens and for their country than we in our generation have been able to do.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me, as a new Member of this House, to listen to the debate. We have heard from people who played a major part in the making of the Community a nd in Britain's relationship to it. I feel profoundly privileged to be present on this historic occasion.
When I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, I could not help feeling glad to be on the same side on this occasion since I should very much dislike to be on any other side. Many years ago I retained the noble Lord as the Price Commissioner. I could have told those who later appointed him European Commissioner that he had the extraordinary quality of knowing every single comma, full stop, semicolon and colon in the Price Code and everything in between. Once given the opportunity to create, as he did, the single market one could be quite sure that the noble Lord would make of it the great edifice that he did. I should like to compliment him on a remarkable speech.
There are two issues to which I wish to turn. However, first, I wish to comment on the different kind of approach that different member states of the European Community have taken to its development and its future. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I could not help thinking, as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Pym, that one of the reasons we can take such a relaxed view of the political necessity of the Community is precisely that the idea of another civil war in western Europe has become unthinkable. I find it hard not to believe that the creation and development of the Community has had a great deal to do with that fact.
However, while we may see ourselves as an exceptional country, not invaded for 900 years and not occupied at any recent stage in our lifetime, other countries have been much less fortunate. It is as much in our interests as it is in those of anybody else that we should create in western Europe a powerful anchor of political and economic stability; and indeed the Community must be much more than a mere economic concept.
The Maastricht Treaty is only one more stage in a process which noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, have explored in the course of the debate. For indeed at one stage after another this country came to terms, as it had to, with some degree of pooling and transfer of sovereignty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, referred to the so-called direct effects of Community directives. That goes back to the Treaty of Rome. It was the first acceptance of some degree of qualification of this country's long-standing parliamentary sovereignty.
600
With the Single European Act we accepted further qualifications. For what else is qualified majority voting —which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, pointed out, had already taken its first steps in the Treaty of Rome—but than some degree of qualification of sovereignty? However, qualification of the concept of sovereignty is not the monopoly of the Treaty of Rome or subsequent treaties of the European Community. If your Lordships read the North Atlantic Treaty it is difficult to believe that we have retained total sovereignty over, for example, our nuclear weapons. I could give many more illustrations from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to international agreements on environmental protection which show that we are moving into a world in which the concept of the absolute unique nation state will necessarily be changed by the sheer force of events.
I turn to the Treaty of Maastricht itself, the Treaty on European Union. It is made up of the two concepts of supra-nationality and inter-governmentalism. The proposals for economic and monetary union reflect supra-nationalism. There are aspects, to which some noble Lords have referred, where there is an inadequate structure of accountability. I share their views about that and I hope that we shall be able to rectify that matter over the next few years.
Let us look at the two inter-governmental pillars of the Maastricht Treaty. One of those is the proposal for inter-governmental co-operation in foreign policy; the other is the proposal for inter-governmental co-operation on internal security, policing, the drug trade, fraud and many other aspects of international crime.
First, as regards inter-governmental proposals for foreign policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, pointed out, we might not have entered into the terrible tragedy of the former Yugoslavia, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, has spoken with such eloquence in this House and elsewhere, had we had a real European foreign policy. But we had nothing of the kind. Had we had some kind of means of defence, of internal co-ordination of security to enable us to intervene, we might not live with such shame as regards the consequences of the former Yugoslavia.
Therefore, we have inter-governmental co-operation in foreign policy. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that it is made absolutely plain throughout that foreign policy will be based upon the conclusions of the European Council. Decisions will be made unanimously and it is only by unanimous decision that an element of qualified majority voting can be accepted in the operational carrying out of foreign policy. That is hardly a radical departure from other relationships which we have had with countries like the United States, member states of the Commonwealth, and so on.
In respect of internal security, inter-governmental co-operation troubles me a great deal more for we do not have written into the treaty the degree of accountability to national parliaments and the European Parliament that I believe such sensitive subjects as asylum and immigration policies, dealing with drugs and fraud, require us to have. Those are all

601
issues upon which Members of Parliament have much to say and a great deal to do in respect of protecting the civil liberties of individuals. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, is right when he says that this House could play a very substantial part in ensuring that not only those elements which are supra-national in the Maastricht Treaty but also those which are inter-governmental shall be subjected to an adequate degree of accountability going well beyond any assurances which Her Majesty's Government have given so far to either House.
Last, because I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer than I believe to be my right, I turn to the situation in which we now find ourselves in that the Maastricht Treaty is part of a process and not the end of a road. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred to the fact that in 1996 or thereabouts there will be a further inter-governmental conference which is intended, perhaps above all, to fill in the democratic deficit to which I have just referred. What troubles many of us most about that democratic deficit is where we are now in relation to the development of the European Community. I hope that noble Lords will not be too critical if I say that I believe that it has been the foot-dragging of this country in our relationships with the development of the Community that has been in large part responsible for that democratic deficit. For we have an immense contribution to make. We are a country with a rich tradition of civic society and a concept of trust deeply laid within the structures of our country. This country should be proud of a network of mutual rights and obligations which constitute our society at its very best. Yet all of that has been, in a sense, kept away from the development of the Community which desperately needs it. It needs that underpinning of a civic society which this country is uniquely placed to contribute and has in many ways refused to do so.
Let us look for a moment to the future. In the next couple of years we shall almost certainly be joined by four countries, each one of which shares that civic tradition, especially the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway and Finland. Those countries believe deeply in the individual liberties and social structures of advanced and mature democracies. They will be a great asset to the Community.
But the next group of countries to join the Community is in a very different position. They are the countries to which the noble Lord, Lord Pym, referred. They are the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the countries of the Visegrad group —Poland, Hungary, the Czech lands, Slovakia and beyond them, Bulgaria, Romania and perhaps others. Those countries are struggling for democracy. They have no tradition of a civic society. They are groping their way towards the concept of mutual obligation and trust. If those countries do not build those traditions and beliefs, they will find their transition to be a cynical joke instead of the opening up of a new future.
We have a huge obligation and commitment to democracy in those countries. We have a huge obligation and commitment to create an orderly
602
structure in Western Europe which will be an anchor for our continent, next door to those struggling and, in many ways, anarchic structures of the Commonwealth of Independent States—the former Soviet Union. We cannot risk our continent, our safety or our democracies, by refusing to contribute all that we can to the strengthening of the European Community, whatever its shortcomings (and it has them) and whatever the difficulties ahead, and they are real.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, asked, "What will the next generation do?" I profoundly believe that it has a challenge, a mission and a role ahead of it in this country that will take all the courage, strength and dreams that it is capable of achieving.
7 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, in September 1939 I was an undergraduate at Cambridge and three weeks later I was in the Army, exactly as my father had been in 1914. Part of my life was spent fighting the Germans and the Italians, and some of my friends in the Royal Navy may have been fighting the French. That is the experience of very many of your Lordships, some around me, some sitting opposite and some in other parts of the Chamber.
That experience has coloured, governed and dominated my personal view about Europe, and that is why I will support the steps that the Maastricht Treaty will take towards a better union of the European states. Anyone who has had experience of war between Europeans could not fail to thank heaven for what has taken place over the past few years in relations with the European states.
When I was a young man, the British Empire was at its most extensive, and the remark made by Dean Acheson was pertinent and poignant when, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Parkinson, he said that Britain had lost an empire and had not found a role. We, as a nation, had been so certain of our place in the world. Now we have become so uncertain that we have floundered on, clutching at pretensions—for example, the British Commonwealth of Nations; the British Nationality Act, which did so much damage to the homogeneity of this nation; and the special relationship with the United States. I made visits to Washington as a law minister in 1963 when relations were supposed to be very close. Noble Lords will remember Uncle Harold and President Jack Kennedy. In the early 1970s the hollowness of that self-deceit was quite apparent. Any reader of any United States' newspaper or anyone who has any experience of the far or mid-West knows only too well how little is written or known in Britain, compared with France and Germany. The special relationship meant nothing. The ocean which General De Gaulle believed we would choose was not an available alternative.
All of that together with the enormous and obvious technological revolution, future communications and travel made me logically, if at times, a bit sadly, accept that the future of our nation lay with Europe.
From Britain's history there never can be and there never will be a romantic view of Europe, as held by people in some European states, of Charlemagne and

603
his knights, and the defence of Christendom against the Turks. The stark fact is that we are a part of Europe. We are not a part of the Americas or of Africa, which has returned to a continent of war lords, or Australasia; we are a part of Europe.
I confess to being irritated and resentful of the attitude of some people who were still in short pants or pigtails when we were at arms, who give the impression that those of us who accept the European idea are less British than they; that by accepting the European idea, we are betraying them. I deeply resent that view.
It is difficult to see how it lies in the mouth of anyone who has served in any British government since 1974 to adopt that attitude. Who are the names on the Single European Act 1986? They are all the great grandees of the Conservative Party. We have heard read out all the words about union in that Act. Who was it who took us into the ERM? It may have occurred at the wrong time and at the wrong rate, but who was it? It was Ministers in the Conservative Government.
It is difficult to accept the practice that has grown up of leaking to the media statements such as "I was overridden; I did not really believe in it; it was not really me; do not blame me; it was the Cabinet that got out of control". It is deeply sad for me, as an old Conservative, to see a successor Prime Minister being overtly or covertly demeaned by a predecessor.
Following the Single European Act, which conceived free movement, free trade, free movement of capital and people, there had to be a development which would co-ordinate co-operation and control of crime and security, foreign policy and defence. How could not Ministers in 1986 see that that would happen? There was bound to be a follow-up. There was bound to be a precursor. Those people are the least convincing opponents of the treaty. I can understand those who have always stood out against the treaty and have solidly fought it all the way through the House of Commons in the 1970s and have taken every opportunity to fight it. They are persons of honour.
However, I wonder about the people who have suddenly changed. Why have they changed? Is there a motive behind the change? Why should they suddenly be attacking the present administration and the treaty? It was obvious after the Single European Act that there would be such a development. It was obvious that there should be a foreign policy, whereby we could put our collective weight behind shared objectives, so that although standing alone we could be brushed aside, together we could not. It is very sensible to increase the accountability of the Commission, to increase the power of the Court of Auditors, to strengthen the rule of law and the Court of Justice, making much more sure that attention is paid to the rules. On 34 occasions France and Germany have been brought before the European Court of Justice and Italy has appeared on 87 occasions. That compares with nine times for the United Kingdom. Now there will be a more extended jurisdiction and a more rigid interpretation of the community.
604
Having spent 40 years of my life as an English lawyer, I can say that we do not have a monopoly of skill in judging and in justice. There are some strange foreign people who also are quite good at being just and who can fairly and decently interpret the rules of a treaty. The courts will be able to pay much closer attention to the question of subsidiarity.
Why is there a call for a referendum? Who are we, in this Chamber, to insist (if the situation ever arises) on a referendum? I was a member of the Tory party in another place when in 1975 the party opposed a referendum. Why did we do so? It was on constitutional grounds, or so we thought. That is what we thought as we read Burke. We believed that we were representatives, not delegates, and that the decision was ours to take, that we could not shift the responsibility. We had the responsibility and that is what we had been elected to do. Some of those people who supported that view then and who led the field against the idea of a referendum, now propose one. At that time they were overcome and there was a referendum. But in this instance the elected House has decisively rejected a referendum, and that is a matter that should pre-eminently be decided by the elected House. It turns on the powers of Members of Parliament who are not delegates but who are representatives. If they have decided that that is a decision for them to take, and they do not wish a referendum to take place, who are we in the unelected Chamber—we are both hereditary and appointed peers—to say otherwise in spite of the great talents we hold and the great contribution we can make to the government of the country? Who are we to say that the Members of the House of Commons were wrong when they retained the right to make this decision?
I suggest that it would be extremely dangerous constitutionally if this House were suddenly to force upon the other place a referendum when another place has made its decision so decisively. There is an old political nostrum that people do not vote positively but rather they usually vote negatively because they are suspicious of the judgment and the motives of those who are soliciting their support. I suppose that is partly why I am so strongly in favour of this Maastricht Treaty. I am suspicious of the judgment and motives of those who oppose it.
I support Her Majesty's Government because I believe the treaty is in the interests of Britain and that without it Britain would be shifted into the margins of Europe. It is in Europe that Britain's destiny in the 21st century must lie. We must try to think 50 years ahead. We must ask ourselves what kind of political organisations there will be then. Do we really think that we on this small island can sit outside that great mass of the sophisticated electorates of the world? We must bear in mind that if we find our destiny in Europe, Britain, after 50 troubled years, will have found what Dean Acheson has said we have not yet found, which is a role.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I shall speak the shorter because so much of what I should have liked to say has been expressed by the noble

605
Lord, Lord Carrington, with infinitely greater authority and wisdom than I can command. I have worked in the public service for 14 years under four Prime Ministers to establish and then to maintain and to strengthen British membership of the European Community. I have done that as a matter of professional duty but also as a matter of personal commitment.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I shrink from the extreme conceptualisms of federalism as well as from the extreme conceptualisms of sovereignty. I look to find the pragmatic solution that is right for us now. I listened with great respect to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who from the depth of his wisdom and experience told us that Maastricht was not the massive and inevitable crossing of the constitutional Rubicon that some have feared. He also reminded us that the word "union" is one of those "Alice in Wonderland" words that means just what the speaker of the moment wants it to mean.
Britain's destiny and future lie within Europe. That means in today's circumstances Britain must be a member of the European Community. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and others have said, there is no real alternative strategy offered to us that commands any credibility. Isolation outside Europe might be splendid. It might constitute a fine and private place with all the attendant disadvantages attached to that. Nor in my judgment should we get off the train, or the bus, or whatever form of locomotion one adopts, crying, "Stop the world. I want to get off". That would be to marginalise the effectiveness of our influence in Europe.
If it is right that our future lies in Europe, as I believe it does, Britain needs to be at the heart of Europe, able to exercise her rightful degree of influence in the councils of Europe to protect British interests in the Community and to make our contribution, in the directions we think right, to the shaping of the Community and to the way it should develop.
I shall not discuss monetary union at great length except to remind your Lordships that neither the treaty nor the Bill to which we are asked to give a Second Reading would commit us to the third stage of economic and monetary union. It would not in fact commit us to rejoining the exchange rate mechanism if we did not wish to do so. These matters are reserved for subsequent decision. In the case of the accession to the third stage of EMU, that matter is reserved for the decision of the British Parliament.
We have succeeded in obtaining an out from the social chapter. Not all noble Lords will approve of that. However, many will regard that as a recognition that British interests are capable of being reflected in the discussions. I hope that we shall give a Second Reading to this Bill because in my view it is time to bring the discussion of Maastricht to a conclusion. The Maastricht debate has diverted the attention and the energies of the political and administrative processes here for long enough. It is time to liberate those processes to concentrate on other pressing
606
matters, not least—the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, reminded us of this—the problems of the British economy.
The Maastricht debate is also diverting those processes, and other European processes, from the enlargement of the European Community. There are four or five countries seeking early accession to the Community and there are another three or four not far behind. We should concentrate now on those matters and put the ratification of Maastricht securely behind us.
Another reason for doing that is that, with the accession of four, five, or seven countries and with a European Community of 17 or 20 countries, the kinds of institutions, relationships and procedures which were appropriate for six countries, and may be appropriate for 12 countries, may hardly be appropriate for a Community comprising the large number of countries I have mentioned. As a result, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may be right to suggest that some of the measures that are proposed in the Maastricht Treaty may never come to pass. I remember accompanying Sir Edward Heath to the first meeting of European heads of Government which a British Prime Minister attended: Britain was still about to join the European Community. At that meeting the nine heads of Government agreed that the Werner Plan of economic and monetary union should be achieved by 1980. We passed that date 13 years ago.
No doubt Maastricht is not perfect, but the balance of British national advantage lies in our joining our partners in ratifying the treaty, and in doing so without too much further delay. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I too hope that a Second Reading will be given to the Bill. I believe that it would be wrong for your Lordships' House to reject a measure which figured in the manifestos of all three parties at the last general election, however small the print.
There is only one aspect of the issue on which I wish to speak. I believe that there should be a national referendum before the Bill is finally enacted. I agree with my noble friend Lady Thatcher, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that the issues involved are sufficiently important and constitutionally significant for the nation to be consulted before the Bill becomes law. I gave my views on the matter in the debate in your Lordships' House on 17th February initiated by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
I believe that there ought to be an amendment on the lines of that moved in another place on 22nd April. It need not necessarily follow the exact wording, the detail of which could be left until later. The purpose would be the same, namely to ensure that the British people are consulted, just as the Irish, the Danes and the French were consulted, on a measure with such far-reaching consequences for their future governance.
I am president of the Campaign for a British Referendum. That body is neutral as regards the

607
treaty. Some members would be opposed and some, like myself, would be in the possibly paradoxical position of voting hesitantly in favour of the Maastricht Treaty if there were a referendum. What unites us is the belief that there should be a referendum and that the British people should have an opportunity to vote on a major constitutional change.
Attempts have been made to depict the Bill as merely dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the Single European Act. I cannot feel that that is an adequate description of the Maastricht Bill. If it is, what has all the fuss been about? Why have we been making such a song and dance about the Maastricht Bill? The Bill involves major changes.
It may be that even a country with the long and venerable continuity and tradition that ours has should sometimes accept major changes, even changes which are de facto irreversible and irrevocable, as some of the changes are. One would hardly want to repeal the Reform Act 1832, although when I see some of the antics which occur in another place I sometimes wonder whether we should.
It is correct that Parliament has an undoubted constitutional right to enact such changes. I do not dispute that for one moment. However, a right to do something is not a duty or an obligation to do it. There is choice or discretion in Parliament and such discretion has been exercised by Parliament four times in the past 21 years. Those instances have already been mentioned. They occurred in 1972 in the case of Northern Ireland, in 1975 in the case of the national referendum in the United Kingdom on an issue not unlike Maastricht, and in 1979 in Scotland and Wales on the question of devolution. There are thus perfectly good precedents for a referendum on a constitutional question and for the people themselves—as in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole—to vote on how they are to be governed. After all, how one is to be governed is among the most important matters which a nation has to decide.
In conclusion, I shall deal briefly with three objections which have been and no doubt will again be raised against a Maastricht referendum. The first is that the matter was settled at the general election last year. That is claimed because all three political parties supported Maastricht in their manifestos. However, that is precisely why we ought to have a referendum. At the general election there was no opportunity to vote against Maastricht. Whatever determined the result of that election it was not Maastricht. It may have been Mr. Major's soapbox, the war of Jennifer's ear, Mr. Kinnock's Sheffield rally or Mr. Smith's shadow budget. It is more likely that it was the simple question of whether people wanted a Conservative or a Labour Government. Whatever the truth, it would be a travesty to argue that the outcome had anything to do with Maastricht. The electorate simply had no choice.
The second objection to a referendum is that it in some way derogates from the sovereignty of Parliament, whatever that really means. In fact, the decision to hold a referendum, if it were taken, would itself be an expression of the sovereignty of
608
Parliament, which alone can authorise such a procedure. It may be that Parliament is not respected by the public as much as it once was. That is hard to measure and there could be many reasons, but it would strain credulity to suggest that that has anything to do with the four referendums held since 1972.
Finally, it has been and will no doubt be objected that the whole question is too complicated for the electorate to understand and that it is better to leave such a matter to the wisdom of Parliament, whose Members will, of course, have read the treaty and Bill from beginning to end. I should hate to appear chauvinistic or politically incorrect. However, I cannot believe that if the Irish, the Danes and the French appear to have had no difficulty in voting on a Maastricht referendum my own fellow country persons—as I suppose I should call them—would find themselves too bewildered and confused to do so. There appear to have been no complaints in Eire, Denmark or France that their citizens could not understand what they were voting on. Surely the British are equally capable of understanding the issues and of making up their own minds.
Finally, I disagree with the point that has been made that a referendum amendment would be constitutionally dangerous in some way. I cannot see that it would be. After all, it is slightly over-pitching the argument to say that if an amendment of the type proposed were passed it would be thrust on to the other place. Members of another place are perfectly capable of rejecting it if they want to. The whole purpose of such a referendum would be to enable second thoughts and to allow the matter to be reconsidered. There is no question of forcing the matter over the heads of Members of another place. Under our law that cannot be done. Therefore, that particular apprehension appears unjustified.
In 1911 there was a great constitutional crisis. The cry went up of the "Peers against the people". If we were to carry a referendum amendment it would be a case of the Peers in favour of the people.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blake has made the best possible case for a referendum. I should like to return to that issue in a moment.
I strongly support the Bill as it stands, for two main reasons. First, I believe that the United Kingdom should keep its word and stick to its agreements as negotiated. As my noble friend Lady Thatcher said, we do not break treaties; and I believe that that dictum should apply to the Treaty of Maastricht too. The Prime Minister signed the treaty and we should not dishonour his or our word. Secondly, I do not believe that your Lordships' House should seek to upset or vary treaty obligations entered into by Her Majesty's Government.
Of course, as my noble friend Lord Carrington suggested, support for the passing of the Bill is quite compatible with believing that the situation has changed very dramatically both politically and economically from what it was when the treaty was

609
signed 18 months ago. The chief political change has resulted from what has happened, or has not happened, in Yugoslavia. My noble friend the Leader of the House called it an international crisis close to home. It is now much more difficult to attach any very exact meaning to a common European foreign and defence policy, or indeed to the very idea of Europe, than it was 18 months ago. That is because of the failure of the Community's policy over Bosnia.
Again as my noble friend Lord Carrington delicately hinted, that has been the sorriest possible tale of futile diplomacy. I say "futile diplomacy" because, when people are fighting each other, for another party to indulge in prolonged diplomacy while at the same time ostentatiously denying itself the threat or sanction of force is bound to produce failure. The aggressor will always continue in his aggressive ways secure in the knowledge that no one will do anything effective to stop him.
The proof of that was demonstrated last month. Early in May Mr. Milosevic thought that there was a serious danger of the Americans insisting on air strikes upon him. As a result, he closed the border and put pressure on the Bosnian Serbs. As soon as that threat disappeared, supplies started rolling into Bosnia again. Europe has shown that it is prepared to do nothing even in the face of continual atrocities and international aggression—not just civil war—on its border. My noble friend Lady Thatcher has spoken eloquently and cogently on the tragedy of Bosnia.
At its greatest test, European co-operation in foreign policy has failed. However, I do not believe that that miserable setback provides a good excuse for refusing to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. For one thing, foreign policy co-operation long antedates Maastricht. It goes back to the Davignon Report of 1970. Secondly, the dangers facing western Europe are far too great to permit the aim of deeper foreign policy co-operation being discontinued or disavowed.
In the past 18 months, the economic situation has changed as much as the political one. It now seems inconceivable that monetary union can be achieved in the very near future. I must say that I welcome that. I believe that the Maastricht proposals for EMU were deeply flawed from the start. They seem to me to envisage a bankers' Europe such as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, feared. Of course, I have nothing against bankers, in particular since my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, is about to address your Lordships' House, but I do not think that a banker's Europe would survive for very long. If one is going to have EMU one has to have institutions to prevent what one might call a Northern Ireland situation arising in a state; and there is nothing of that kind in the Maastricht agreement.
Unlike my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, and unlike the two other party leaders, I am basically in favour of referenda. Like my noble friend Lord Blake, I do not believe that they are incompatible with parliamentary democracy. They can be a useful addition to it. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, stated, it is a little late for a referendum on Maastricht. It is now 18 months since the treaty was signed. But it
610
is even later than the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested, because, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield said—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce made the same point in different language —the drastic nature of Maastricht has been very greatly exaggerated. I believe that the time for a referendum was on the Single European Act; and we did not have one.
It is of course true, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher said, that no elector has had a chance to vote on Maastricht. However, that applies to every single issue that could possibly face the country or the electorate. We have a system of voting for parties. We never have a vote on any single issue. It is quite possible that this issue might be the exception. If we had started off with that view, that might well be true. But the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Blake—unless I misunderstood him—that, because all three parties are in favour of something, it strengthens the case for a referendum seems decidedly odd. We all know that parties seek votes. If they believe that they will gain votes by going against the view of the other two parties, one of them is likely to break cover and say that they are against, in this case, Maastricht. However, they did not. That surely shows that they believed that Maastricht should be ratified and that there was not a great upsurge of support against Maastricht. While there are obviously exceptions, in general if all three parties are in favour of something there is at least a possibility that those three parties are right.
The European Community cannot be frozen in its pre-Maastricht mode. The Community cannot stand still, and we cannot opt out. A mere free trade area is not a possibility even if it were desirable. It never was a possibility. One has to have institutions to police or organise free trade. The treaty is another step on the road to greater European unity. I very much hope that your Lordships will ratify it.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, whether or not one is a supporter of a unified Europe it is now apparent to most people that the Treaty of Maastricht was misconceived. The attempt to force an unruly Western Europe into a premature union has backfired.
A few days ago a writer in the Financial Times said this:
"The purpose of Maastricht was to take Europe a great stride forward, but the real political effect of the treaty-making process has been to make European integration more unpopular, divisive and difficult".
Unsatisfactory though it is, the treaty is nevertheless now before this House.
The question we are debating is momentous, but the issue is simple: should this country remain an independent, self-governing member of the European Community, or should we take the road to "ever closer union" spelled out in the treaty, involving a large transfer of power from Whitehall and Westminster to Brussels? The treaty provides for a single European union; European citizenship; the exchange rate mechanism, then permanently fixed exchange rates, leading to a single European currency, the ecu; a single European central bank which will

611
issue all EC currency, hold all reserves, direct the economic and monetary policies of member states and have powers to make binding regulations, backed by the European Court of Justice, which can fine member states for failure to comply; a common foreign policy, a common security policy and eventually a common defence policy, leading to a common defence; a single institutional framework, with greatly increased influence for the Commission but relatively few real powers for the European Parliament and far fewer powers for national parliaments; and, finally, provisions on subsidiarity which relate only to areas outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the centre. Those are quite hard to find. Compared with the treaty's main provisions, subsidiarity is a piece of grit to a steam-roller.
The treaty will be applied by a Commission with overtly federal objectives and interpreted by the European Court of Justice, which will treat it as a political imperative, not just a piece of law. That is the way it works, or has worked, although my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce held out a faint hope that it might act differently in future. In the Council of Ministers, the majority hold views about a federal Europe that Ministers in this country either do not share or dare not openly support.
This, then, is a massively centralising treaty. It marks a decisive shift of power away from national parliaments and towards unelected and unaccountable central institutions. It heralds the greatest change in the way that we are being governed for many, many years.
But in this country the issue has been confused by the line taken by the Government. The Foreign Secretary claims repeatedly that the treaty is not a blueprint for a United States of Europe, provoking the reasonable reaction from Mr. Simon Jenkins of The Times:
"He can't have read it".
Now we know that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has not read it because he has told us so. Ignorance of its detailed provisions, or indifference to them, seem to be qualifications for high office in this Government. But Mr. Hurd has surely read it and his view of the significance of the treaty is really very strange. He claims that it marks "an advance for our approach" and "an improvement on the previous position". He says that it was "largely settled on our terms" and "offers us the chance to arrest the centralising, harmonising tendency" and "to build a more decentralised and diverse Community". He even talks about building up further the role of national parliaments. I find it hard to credit that he really believes all this. A reading of the treaty itself makes it clear that it is a centralising measure. I am afraid that, as was once said in another context, the Foreign Secretary has used great gifts to obscure the truth.
The Prime Minister, when he talks about Maastricht, sounds reasonable and reassuring, but it is clear that no other Community government shares his view of what the treaty means. Despite serious doubts among their electorates—the French referendum was only won by a whisker and in Germany there is increasing opposition to the concept of a single
612
currency—those governments regard Maastricht as marking significant progress towards a European union which, they hope and expect, will become a single European country —a federation or a united states—within 15 to 20 years. The timetable and the three stages for that progress are set out in the treaty. In the meantime, under the existing arrangements, the Commission churns out vast numbers of directives and regulations which increasingly dominate our lives, as any businessman or farmer knows. It threatens us with many more, if necessary as health and safety measures, so that our objections can be overruled by majority vote.
The key element in Maastricht is monetary union and the single currency. I have previously argued in this House that a single currency means a single country. I have no doubt that that is so. We do, indeed, have our opt-out from Stage 3, so we are not inescapably committed; but as everyone knows, if we ratify the treaty we shall come under enormous pressure, first to rejoin the ERM—clinging to which for so long did us such immense damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, pointed out in his notable maiden speech—and then to agree to a single currency. Those who are planning the new fully integrated Europe are not letting the grass grow under their feet. Indeed, the summit planned for this autumn by Chancellor Kohl and the Belgians is designed specifically to speed up the establishment of European union. Next week, I believe, preparations will begin for setting up the European Monetary Institute which will come into being next January as a forerunner of the European Central Bank, an unelected body which we will not be allowed to influence and which is to run the economies of the Community. In many respects, the president and governing council of that bank will, under the treaty, become the real government of Europe.
Now I know that some noble Lords think that in practice things may not turn out to be so bad. They suggest that some of the treaty's provisions, like European citizenship, are pretty meaningless and that monetary union is not going to happen, or is not going to happen for a very long time, because the conditions for it, above all the required convergence between the economies of member states, are not in place and are not likely to be in place for a long time. In any event, it is all going to be reviewed in 1996. Therefore, they suggest, would it not be best to pass this Bill and look to our Government to work with those who think like us to devise a more sensible and realistic way forward?
It sounds an attractive option, but I do not think that it will do. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, it seems to me neither wise, nor indeed, honourable to ratify a treaty on the basis that a good deal of it is probably nonsense and will not come to pass. And I think that it greatly overrates our persuasive power in Europe. If we think that the plan laid down by the treaty is wrong, our proper course must be to resist the treaty and this Bill.
Now I come to the most important point of all—the lack of any consultation with the British people. Here is a treaty of 134 pages, mainly consisting of amendments to earlier treaties not published with it. It

613
is a text to baffle a barrister. There is no consolidated text, no introduction, no commentary and no explanation of the treaty's provisions. In language favoured by the Commission, there is no "non-technical summary". One can buy the treaty text at the Stationery Office for £13.30. Very belatedly, a Foreign Office pamphlet has been brought out. By any standards, the treaty will affect everyone, yet the public, who receive so much advice under the Citizen's Charter about how to complain about trivial matters, have been deliberately excluded from the debate. There has been no attempt to tell them what powers will be transferred and what retained, or how the treaty could ever be abrogated.
Voters in the last election, as the noble Lord, Lord Blake, reminded us a short time ago, had no choice about Maastricht because of the consensus between the three main political parties, who have a combined membership of rather less than half that of the National Trust. That has stifled discussion and denied the people any say. No one who refuses to ask them has the right to assume the consent of the British people to forcing through the ratification of this treaty. A major constitutional change, brought about without real consent may, when people wake up to what has been done, produce a violent reaction. A Europe jammed together without wholehearted consent will not last, any more than the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have lasted.
There is only one way to overcome this problem. That is a referendum. The other place voted against a referendum, we all know the pressures to which they were subject. The payroll vote, the ferocious arm-twisting by the Whips, the blighting of political prospects, the threat of de-selection —all presented a sorry spectacle of what we are pleased to call parliamentary democracy. The issue is now with us.
What will this enormous transfer of power mean? No more pound sterling, no more control over our own economic policy and, above all, the reduction in status and power of this Parliament to something like the state legislature of Pennsylvania or West Virginia, with the Queen no longer sovereign, but, like each of us, a citizen of Mr. Delors' Europe, owing unspecified duties to it. In those circumstances, I think that the State Opening of Parliament would become a meaningless charade and should be abolished.
It must be wrong to try to force this massive change through without giving the people a chance to speak. It is insulting to treat our people like illiterate peasants, too stupid to understand what is at stake. This House should ask the other place to think again. We must give the Prime Minister a chance to reconsider his decision. I believe it would be very much in his own interests to do so.
I am not sure whether Sir Edward Heath, when angrily denouncing those who happened to disagree with him, was arguing that if this House called for a referendum we would be among those who, as he put it, would be,
"hated to the end of time",
or merely that we should be abolished; perhaps both. But we should not be influenced by threats or abuse.
614
We have a great opportunity. It is the last chance for our country. We can amend this Bill to ask that our own people should be consulted. It will be a proud day for this House if we can do that. We can and we must stand up for our own people. No one else can do it.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, in this debate much is at stake for the commercial community. It is not just a question of the terms of the agreement made at Maastricht, but rather there is at stake for us the answer to the fundamental question which we have pondered in this country for a very long time: are we committed to playing our full part in shaping the European Community?
For commerce and industry it is vital that we do so. We are still a trading nation, and commerce is still our life blood. Europe is far and away our most important export market. Many wish, as I personally would, to resist the growth of too much centralised power in the European Commission. We also recognise that, as is the case at the end of every skilfully conducted negotiation, the Maastricht agreement is less than perfect. But I believe that we must participate, and do so fully, if we are to promote free trade, secure a competitive marketplace and protect our own national interests. We simply cannot hope to prosper if we cut the painter from mainstream Europe.
Those who work in our financial markets, based principally but not exclusively in the City of London, have for years almost entirely supported the strengthening of the links with the European Community. Why have they done so? The reasons are simple and hard-headed. No less than 60 per cent. of this country's exports now go to Europe. As much goes to Germany as goes to the United States and Japan combined. Our financial dealings are increasingly focused on the single market. We are able to serve as the leading financial centre for Europe in one of the world's three main time zones. Overall exports from City activities, including banking, insurance, law and accountancy, are some £17 billion a year. So the strength of the City is an essential part of our national interest.
So, too, are our manufacturing strengths. The CBI and most manufacturers have consistently stressed the need for us to be fully involved in the way Europe goes forward. We are all now once again (and high time too) acutely conscious of the importance of improving our manufacturing capacity and fighting for export markets. We are helped in that effort by the investment to create manufacturing plant which has come into this country in the past few years. It has enabled us to become net exporters of colour televisions. Soon we shall again be net exporters of motor cars.
Almost 40 per cent. of United States and Japanese inward investment into the European Community has been made in this country. That has not been because of the attractions of the United Kingdom home market standing on its own. It has been because this country has been seen as committed to free trade and as the first port of entry into the wider European market. We cannot put investment of that kind at risk.

615
Leaders of commerce, in both the United States and Japan, say that our position will be imperilled if we stand apart from the next stages. Our already inadequate manufacturing industry would lose momentum for growth.
It is sometimes urged that we should follow the example of Hong Kong, which has served for many years as a conspicuously successful offshore leading market for China to the outside world. But the comparison is misleading. China had no developed markets of its own. But in Europe, Frankfurt and Paris are each already sizeable financial centres, and they are striving to improve their position. Frankfurt has started to liberalise its financial regime. It is actively promoting itself as Germany's main financial centre. We simply cannot ignore that competition. The single market will continue to develop.
Almost every speaker in this debate has stressed the importance of free trade. But much of our free trade must be with Europe. Those who do not participate to the full in the development process will lose out. We cannot simply catch the bus or train or any other vehicle labelled "free trade" but yet fail to take part in shaping the railways, roads or other infrastructure.
Let us take what will happen under the Maastricht agreement alone. A European monetary institution will as from 1st January 1994, whether we like it or not, shape the framework in which our financial institutions do business in our most important markets. It will stamp its imprint upon banking supervision, upon capital adequacy, upon the levels of reserves, upon payments systems and the kinds of business that we can do and the way in which that business is regulated. Many of those are very technical. But each vitally affects our ability to compete. The higher the standing of the United Kingdom and the greater the influence the Bank of England has in the European monetary institution, the better it must be for us. We must have a voice, or others will secure their own advantage and surely, but not slowly, the City's leading position will be eroded.—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way to me on this point. Before he departs from the financial aspect in which he is very interested, will he explain to the House the circumstances in which we lost £6 billion on 16th September?
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, it is no part of my theme to deal with the vicissitudes of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism. I would say, however, that we went in with the support of government, of the City and of most of industry. The objectives which we sought in going in—a stable currency and low inflation—are still in principle desirable.
Some still query how much we can achieve if we do not participate in the development of Europe. But let us consider the evidence. It was this country which, when my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister and my noble friend Lord Cockfield was Commissioner, did so much to promote free trade. They hammered away at the protectionism which is so ingrained in some European countries. That process
616
has much further to go, and we must continue to drive it forward. But perhaps the most important illustration of the influence wielded when this country plays its part is the Maastricht Treaty itself. At Maastricht we were able to avoid the acceptance of the social chapter. I believe it is not just we who view the social chapter with considerable misgivings. So, privately, as they will tell one, do many continental Europeans.
Europe as a whole has lost its competitiveness over recent years. It is in danger of what a decade ago used to be called "Euro-sclerosis". It is going through a period of structural change. Enormous developments in technology, combined with the cost of labour, have meant that unemployment has risen rapidly. As Sir Michael Angus, president of the CBI, said recently, Europe faces the challenge of modifying the Brussels approach so as to give primary emphasis to European industrial competitiveness. This challenge cannot be overstated. One of our key roles is to encourage Europe to meet it. It is in our interests that our major export market should be able to compete with other OECD countries and with developing nations.
I do not wish, despite the temptation put before me by my noble friend Lord Gilmour, to argue for a bankers' Europe. But perhaps I may say a word or two on the emotive issue of a single currency. We were right to reserve our position on the single currency. Theoretically a single currency could bring cost savings and greater efficiency to the single market. But it cannot be driven by a timetable. As the Governor of the Bank of England has said, economic convergence is necessary before a single currency could work. It is much more important that the countries of Europe should strive towards the Maastricht convergence criteria, for those drive us towards the goal of long-term low inflation, and to impose restraint on public sector borrowing. These basic economic disciplines are needed across Europe, as much as they are needed in this country.
Nor do I believe that a single currency is crucial to the function of an open market. Others may well share our own doubts about its practicality. I suspect that when the issue is fully debated in Europe there will be many who will be reluctant to give up the deutschmark. It is cherished as their greatest national asset. Europe will require considerable political tolerance if its monetary institutions are to endure and develop. With all those uncertainties it is highly understandable that we should have reserved our judgment until later. That we achieved that freedom of action is another illustration of how we secure our own interests by full participation.
I turn briefly to one of our other signal contributions at Maastricht. We stressed the importance of preserving the rights and cultures of individual countries. That is vital if the Community is to prosper and not to be rent asunder. The constitutional relationship between the European Community and member nations must be shaped in such a way that the individual countries cede only just as much sovereignty as is necessary to enable the essential functions of the Community to be fulfilled.

617
Only those things which need to be done centrally should be done centrally. That was the merit of the concept of subsidiarity.
Nor, as has been apparent, are we alone in that view. Chancellor Kohl has said that Europe should have "unity in diversity". The emphasis at the centre should be on completing the single market and preventing anti-competitive practices. One of the reasons why we should be there is to secure that clarity of focus.
With our influence the process of recognising subsidiarity as a constitutional buttress of the Community began at Maastricht. Along with other lawyers, I have doubts about the strength of Article 3b standing on its own. The procedures agreed at Edinburgh, which emphasise that every proposal must be tested against the criterion of subsidiarity, go a long way to allay that concern in practice. There are also indications that the Commission officials are showing a change of attitude.
But I am wary for the long term. We must be vigilant if we want the Community to survive to guard for the future against what Jacques Delors called the natural tendency of the centre to accumulate power. I hope that the new procedures agreed on subsidiarity can be enshrined in law at the next round of Community negotiations. Firm constitutional underpinning of the rights of nations is necessary and it is not yet fully there.
Our influence over the Maastricht agreement, whether we fully like it or not, was greater than over any of the other major treaties which have shaped the European Community. That not only illustrates that we can best secure our own interests by taking part; it gives us an acute difficulty if we fail to ratify. We should be branded as the part authors of the script who refused to take part in the play. What influence would we have when it came to writing the sequel?
We can have a powerful voice in Europe. Our partners wish us to be there. Time and again I have been told that our role is welcome because of our commitment to free trade, our pragmatism and our deep instincts for democracy. We need to be there because openness, competitiveness and subsidiarity are all central. Our economy has a long and tough road ahead. So do the economies of mainland European countries. This economic down-turn is not just cyclical; it is structural. Therefore we will need to fight for free trade across the board. We can only achieve our central objectives if we seek to play a central role.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, as an industrialist who was responsible for the privatisation of one of our largest companies, I have constantly declared my commitment to the principle of rolling back the frontiers of the state in favour of the freedom, responsibility and enterprise of the individual.
It is therefore not surprising that I view the proposals set out in the treaty and the Bill before your Lordships with a great deal of concern as they extend the power and scope of the unelected Commission in
618
Brussels over a whole range of functions not previously enshrined in the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, and notwithstanding the comments of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. It would be ironic indeed if the admirable efforts of the current and previous Conservative Administrations to rein back the pervasive influence of the bureaucracy at home were to be totally frustrated by strengthening and extending the role of the bureaucracy in Brussels.
I listened very carefully to the arguments advanced by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and other noble friends especially with regard to the economic consequences of rejection of the Bill. Despite the CBI's support and the support advanced by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, not all industrialists and City interests are so enamoured of the extension of the Bill into functions, responsibilities and obligations other than those deemed necessary to ensure efficient, equitable and effective operation of the single market.
We have been told by our European colleagues that the ultimate financial objective of Maastricht must be a common currency managed by a European central bank. It is difficult to envisage that objective being achieved without harmonisation and eventual uniformity of fiscal policy, including common tax and interest regimes; in other words, political and economic integration. If that is the direction that my noble friend Lord Wakeham invites us to take, supported by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, then I believe, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, most eloquently and passionately challenged, that the people of this country should have the opportunity to give their individual assent to such a fundamental shift of parliamentary responsibility and supremacy.
We have also been told by some of my noble friends that if we do not pass this Bill, this country will be marginalised and bypassed in influencing the economic, political and social integration of Europe. That argument is strong in rhetoric but lacking in substance. It bears little relation to current economic realities. It is true that over 60 per cent. of our UK exports are to the EC. Incidentally, that is why all industrialists are wholly in favour of the single European market. But it is also true—this is conveniently overlooked by proponents of the "sidelined" argument—that we import from the EC far more than we export. The UK represents a fat and lucrative market for our EC partners. Over the past three years our excess of imports from the EC over exports to the EC has been approximately £6 billion per annum. We currently import at the rate of more than £5 billion per month. Frankly, to warn that we shall be excluded from exercising influence over essential trade, financial and economic matters of concern to us suggests a lack of robustness in handling our economic interests rather than a lack of economic or political clout.
Attempts have also been made to frighten us by suggesting that the flow of inward investment would cease if we failed to pass this Bill. That argument too lacks credibility. Failure to pass the Bill does not affect by one iota our rights, privileges, responsibilities and opportunities within the single European market.

619
Japan and the United States view the UK as a favourable industrial location because of our culture, competitive cost structure, skilled labour force and unconditional access to the common market. None of those factors will be adversely impacted by the non-ratification of the Bill. That has been confirmed to me in conversations that I have had recently with industrialists both in Japan and the United States.
Finally, there are those who still hanker after re-entry into the ERM, recognising that with major members remaining outside the ERM the pace and progress towards full economic and financial integration will be seriously impeded. Certainly industrialists attach great importance to exchange rate stability, which is critical for investment decisions and the quality of their earnings. But an objective of exchange rate stability can be achieved only if exchange rates reflect economic and financial fundamentals. The control of money supply, interest rates and fiscal policy, investment and savings policy and size and shape of public expenditure, all exercise leverage on our economic future. To hand over most of those levers to a European bank and a bureaucracy in Brussels, no matter how competent they are, needs the full assent of the citizens of this country. I regret that such assent has neither been sought nor received.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, much as I respect the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and much as I have admired my old friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, as the best non-resigning Chancellor since the war, I heavily discount their judgment on Maastricht for reasons to which I shall turn in a moment.
We all agree, from our different standpoints, that there has been a good deal of confusion over Maastricht. The latest sample of deception or, to be more kind, self-deception, is a somewhat contradictory circular from the CBI which was distributed among your Lordships on a strictly selective basis—presumably to those thought to be the most gullible. At first sight it seemed to be on the side of the angels. Thus it offers,
"A Europe of independent nation states".
It goes on to abominate Brussels for "pettifogging regulations", "arrogance", "dirigiste philosophy", "Napoleonic edicts" and "protectionism". Indeed, the author mocked Brussels as,
"ideally liking to organise European industry as well as they have organised European agriculture".
I turn to my reasons for discounting the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. It is that from their lofty European perches they have totally failed at any time to sound warnings to Brussels against the excesses that the CBI mentioned. They have left it to my old friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to incur the odium of saying what the CBI and others have dared to say.
The CBI criticisms sound like a promising preface to my more extensive charge sheet against the European virus of Delorean delirium. We must ask how the CBI reconcile such a damning indictment
620
with support for the Maastricht Treaty on European Union. By the old trick of the sly non sequitur, all that Brussels mischief, they plead,
"is no reason to abandon the Single Market as the so-called Euro-sceptics would wish".
The formidable coalition against Maastricht no doubt includes a minority who are unenthusiastic about the market. But I must repeat the pronouncements of others and tell them and the CBI that if we take courage to block the treaty, as the French nearly did in the referendum that they were privileged to have, the European Economic Community would still stand as the guardian of the single market. Indeed, as an economist my decisive reason for opposing Maastricht is that it is not merely a distraction from completing the market; it is in head-on conflict with that great project.
If professional economists are agreed on anything it is that free trade is the nearest we have to a panacea for poverty, not only in Europe but throughout the world. However, many speakers have argued that economics is not enough and that a political dimension is necessary. They persist in asking the vulgar question, "What is the alternative?" I am pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who was one of the principal authors of the 1992 project, gave us the answer. He said that he would have preferred us to complete the economic agenda and leave the political agenda to a later generation. That was his preference and it shall be my policy from this moment forth.
Free trade is much more than the high road to economic efficiency and national prosperity. In the wider tradition of political economy it offers our best prospect of peace and guarantee of liberty. Of course, the central objective of the founding fathers in Europe was political: so to unite the warring nations as to make impossible a repetition of the European civil wars of 1870, 1914 and 1939. But their chosen chief method was economic. It was to supplant the national socialism of the Kaiser and Hitler by the liberalism of Adam Smith and Cobden. In place of protectionism and autarchy, which Smith denounced as mercantilism, the founders sought integration into a single market through the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to free movement of goods, services and capital. The common market was a peace treaty based on economic disarmament which rendered impossible the building up of war-like industry.
I may be forgiven for once again quoting the neglected wisdom of Adam Smith. In the great work, The Wealth of Nations, he said,
"Were all nations to follow the liberal system of free exportation and free importation, the different states into which a great continent was divided would so far resemble the different provinces of a great empire".
In short, he was saying that interdependence through trade is a means of spontaneous unification; if you will, a form of natural federalism or, as the absent noble Lord, Lord Joseph, would prefer, confederal-ism.
It was on that precise analysis that the Treaty of Rome promised the best of both worlds—the economic and the political. Under free trade we would enjoy full economic integration as though part of a

621
single empire. At the same time we would preserve the advantages of political decentralisation under otherwise independent governments. In short, we do not need political union, much less Delors' new European empire. Through free trade we could have the invisible empire of Adam Smith. A large bonus is that trade unites people where politics divides them.
Inevitably, so long as each member of the EEC could veto agreements, progress in the removal of barriers was slow and invariably blocked by vested national interests. It was to overcome such obstruction that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, assented to the Single European Act in 1986 which extended majority voting. The lawyers sold the Single European Act as a necessary but limited concession of sovereignty for the specific purpose of completing the market by the end of 1992.
It was the unprincipled exploitation of that measure by the Commission, for purposes far removed from the single market, that first alerted me to worse dangers ahead. In the name of harmonisation, health and welfare, environment, social policy and other innocent-sounding purposes, majority voting has been perverted to overrule national self-government in the interest of creeping federalism, to which the CBI object but which Maastricht would accelerate to a gallop.
We have seen the pressure to impose the 48-hour week, the threat to ban newspaper delivery boys, the imposition of TV quotas, censorship of cigarette advertising, equalisation of taxes and unrelenting pressure for minimum wages, uniform conditions of work and other nonsense. It displays an abysmal failure to understand that free trade essentially depends on differing costs and circumstances—what economists call comparative advantages. As the contrasting fortunes of Hong Kong and Africa so vividly demonstrate, trade not aid is the way to economic progress. The level playing field of M. Delors is the crudest example of flat earth economics.
The case against Maastricht is that it would carry this Euro-phoria further and wider. Majority voting would be extended—and no doubt again manipulated —to include economic policy guidelines, commercial policy, consumer protection, common standards on road, rail, telecommunications, and much else. Increased taxation and spending on a cohesion fund is presented as uplifting poorer members but in practice aims to ingratiate them to M. Delors and his apparatchiks. Above all, enforcement of convergence under Stage 2 of monetary union—plus unceasing pressure to railroad us into Stage 3—threatens to reduce Britain's economic self-government to what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, once called the power of a rate-capped local authority.
Labour may say that government from Brussels could not be worse than the regime we have suffered lately under Mr. Major. But Liberals might dimly recall the cautionary adage that self-government is preferable to good government. And Tories might share my doubts whether M. Mitterrand, Herr Kohl and other spent European forces would really provide good government.
622
After the soft shoe shuffle of the Single European Act, Maastricht threatens a leap towards full federalism with one money, one chancellor and, in the end, one economic policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others have hinted, it is in fact even more out of touch with European sentiment today than when the Euro-elite dreamed it up two or three years ago. It is not wanted and I have absolutely no doubt whatever that it will not work. But in the process of over-toppling, it would almost certainly stop progress towards completing the market and bring present gains into jeopardy.
My Lords, for what purpose? Is it to appease the most extreme federalists in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Spain—all with their own differing national anxieties, ailments and appetites to be relieved or gratified by ever more centralisation, subsidies, harmonisation and disguised protectionism? I was alarmed when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, warned us against strong expressions of the kind I am now uttering because it might "try the patience of our European partners". I shall try their patience again. Or are we to be mesmerised and intimidated by slogans? Must we keep on the Euro-express despite the fact that it is speeding towards the buffers? Must we be at the heart of Europe at any price, as though you would help people struggling in quicksands by jumping into the middle? Or is Britain's best contribution once again to stand her ground, and with wise counsel on completing the single market, seek to save our European friends from this collectivist folly?
8.23 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I live on an island and I am British. It is not surprising therefore that I have an instinct against the subsumation of the British Isles into a coalition of European powers with whom we have been fighting wars over the centuries. Most of your Lordships share that instinct. I have a stronger motive because I am half Norwegian, and a great part of Norwegian history has been spent trying to struggle out from under the domination of the European power of Denmark. But having said that, I must tell your Lordships that instinct is a very bad counsellor and we should not be counselled by it alone tonight.
One has only to look round the world to see what a mess instinct has got us into. It is because of instinct that man, whenever he is outside constraining constitutions and institutions, resorts to fire and the sword to gain his ends. It is because of that that so much of the world is in such a desperate state now. Several of my noble friends have already pointed out that the European Community has already achieved the construction of a constraining institution which makes the use of fire and sword between individual members of Europe unthinkable. But it should not be thought that that is a permanent solution. The Tsar of Russia thought that he had a permanent settlement for peace in the constitution of Russia. Stalin thought that he had a permanent settlement for the maintenance of peace in Soviet Russia. What we need to tell the third generation referred to by my noble friend Lord Cockfield is that the veneer of civilisation with which

623
the savage human being is coated is very, very thin and that a few bricks falling down from a constitutional edifice in Moscow have scraped it off the Azeris who are now waging a war of genocide on Nagorno-Karabakh. If my children believe that it is sufficient to repose upon the efforts of my generation and your Lordships for the maintenance of peace in Europe, they will be sadly mistaken. We have a duty not only to build but to maintain this secure institution.
My noble friend Lady Thatcher—I am very sorry that she has had to leave at this moment—sought to persuade your Lordships that it would all be all right if we went away from Maastricht because there was still the Treaty of Rome and nothing would change. But I fear that she did not persuade me—nor will she persuade many of my noble friends that it is possible to return to the status quo ante. Almost all of our partners have already ratified; the rest will. They will not abandon their objectives because the UK decides not to follow them. That is the political reality. A failure to ratify now would have a whole series of consequences. It would frustrate enlargement; it would condemn the European Community to a long period of introspection; it would marginalise this country—I wish to emphasise that point—at a great economic cost. One thing it would not do would be to return us to the status quo ante.
When my noble friend stood to make her sterling speech she reminded me of a retired huntsman blowing the horn outside a stable in which I, as one of her former Ministers, was stabled. As I heard the horn it made my blood thrill. There was a pawing of the hooves and a shaking of bridles and I think I heard a whinny or two in the stalls behind me. But the fact is that that is instinct calling again—the instinct of the chase. I think in any case that she is hunting the wrong fox.
The question we have all been asking tonight is the wrong question. We have been asking each other: wouldn't it be dreadful to go in; wouldn't it be worse than it is now; or, alternatively, wouldn't it be much better; wouldn't we be much stronger? But the question we have to ask is: what would it be like outside? I do not think we have the option of staying outside fortress Europe, outside fortress America, outside fortress ASEAN. Even if we were a great power I do not think that we would have the strength to stay still while the tide of history flowed past us. Even the United States of America is building an economic community around itself consisting not only of North America but of South America as well.
The world is a dangerous place as we can see if we look merely into Yugoslavia—certainly into the whole of what was Soviet Russia. The world is moving into bigger blocs. We cannot any longer live in the past, pretending we are a great power without the resources of a great power; pretending we have a commercial empire when we have none. We have to go into Europe. Let us certainly get the best terms we can but we must ask what do we do with it? The big issues facing us now are not the qualified majority but GATT and the reconstruction of the Soviet Union—
624
the things that the muscle of Europe enables human beings to do which our diminishing resources do not allow us to do on our own.
My final reflection is this. And I apologise to perhaps three of your Lordships who were here for the economic debate when I mentioned it before. The whole of this question seems to be put into a proper perspective if one does not look at it from where one is sitting now, in this Chamber, on this island, on this continent, on this very small globe. Some years ago I went to a conference and heard an astronaut speak of what happened to him—in fact, it was a her; a Russian astronaut—as she looked back at the world from space. Earlier I heard a male American astronaut saying exactly the same thing. They said that once you get out there these little differences are incomprehensible. The question is not who should have what trade agreement, but where are these differences? There is one globe unsupported in space and one human race, the divisions within which cannot be detected. One has only to pull back to the edge of our own little galaxy and the world disappears. We are on a perilous little fragment of matter in a huge space. The question is whether we shall survive. I regret to say that the approach which I found most compelling came from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who asked: What can we give to Europe? It seems to me that we should be looking at those countries as co-survivors and not as rivals.
The question is how we can make Europe stronger to contribute to a world which is strong enough with its ever-multiplying population, its ever-increasing pollution and its ever-diminishing finite resources. How can we get it to survive? In the political context I am certain that the direction of survival lies in Europe and not outside it. There are many other issues such as religious issues which I burn to detain your Lordships with, but this is not the occasion. I merely ask your Lordships to consider this question in its global context as well as its historical one. The historical context is the flow into bigger and stronger blocs outside of which we shall become a nonentity. The global picture is that we are in a parlous position as a human race and we have not that much time to put it right. That is the way to go.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am very concerned this evening that I may say things that I have already said before. Therefore, I take as my text St. Matthew:
"Use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking".
I could go on in that vein, but the humour is not with me. I brought the wrong glasses tonight. I had a very old speech which I intended to deliver to your Lordships exactly as I delivered it 21 years ago, knowing full well that none would know the difference.
Tonight I feel that to speak about trade, economies and things of that kind which have been spoken about again and again, is wrong. Therefore we should look at what is really a most boring issue. What an incredibly dull script! For the life of me I cannot

625
understand why it should have attracted so many of us today. I believe that for every line there are now two actors; for every line in the Bill there are two speakers. One realises that often great plays do not have great words, but great actors. One looks back, as noble Lords will remember, to the Writ originally made in about 1641 when in Latin we were summoned to this place as, "Prelates, great men and Peers". I am not a Prelate and no Prelates are speaking on this subject. But the great men and women we have already heard today and those who will follow tomorrow are making a tremendous play out of a dull and boring plot. That is to be admired.
What are we for and what are we against? I believe that probably we are all for the same thing. I have already mentioned the heathen. It would be wrong to apply that title to us because most of us are not heathens; we are either Jewish, Christian or Moslem. But are we heretics and who are the infidels? I understand that a heretic is someone who will not accept the practised theology. We have had heretics today. An infidel is also someone who will not believe the beliefs of the speaker, and no doubt after I have spoken there will be many infidels.
Therefore it seems to me that those who handbag and those who sandbag may be deemed to be heretics or infidels—they are one and the same. At one extreme we have those who say "Over my dead body; we shall never be a member of the European Community and I wish that we were not". At the other extreme we have those who say, "Everything is great and good across the water. If only we had listened to them long ago we would have a strong economy".
Therefore heretics and infidels—the goody-goody Europeans and those who say that it will never do us any good—are one and the same. Where then do many of us stand? Not being a heathen, I thought I might find myself in the middle. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson told us in his remarkable speech today, I was very pro-European at one time. Then I became very anti. Today I have suddenly decided that I am not quite sure what Maastricht is about. I have read the Bill and I have tried to understand the treaty. I did a little research to find out where it all came from. As your Lordships know well, "Maas" is rather a boring word. It is effectively a Boer word. It is a Zulu word for a rather peculiar kind of sour milk which becomes more sour and more acidulous when it is kept in a leather bottle.
Therefore, I wondered what was "a Maastrichtian". I found at last that your Lordships are all Maastrichtians whether you be Prelates, great men or Peers. I am told by those who believe that geology came before religion and man had the duty to understand the earth that a Maastrichtian pertains to a division of the upper cretaceous in Europe—or the upper crust; a stage which is generally recognised as a brief interval during which many organisms underwent a severe attenuation in diversity or became extinct.
Maastricht and the Bill will become extinct. It will be yesterday's Bill. It is utterly irrelevant to the affairs of men and of Europe. It is but a passing phase. But
626
it exists. If it did not exist we would have to invent it because we would have no plot or play. We would not be able to assemble here more great men, Prelates and Peers than have ever spoken on any single matter. It is approximately one-third of the total normal attendance at your Lordships' House and about 12 per cent. of those of us who could ever appear here should we so wish. Why are we giving it such great attention?
Twenty-one years ago or more we were having the same debate. My noble friend Lord Cockfield raised the point. Are we debating whether we should be a member of the European Economic Community of however many it is? I do not know. In those 21 years what has happened? In that time 25 per cent. of the population was not alive at the time. They had not been born. Fifteen per cent. of the population is now dead and as time goes by so that change will continue.
I thought that I had already heard from the generation that came before me and I believe that I know what my own generation thinks. So I thought that I would ask the generation that came after; namely, those at the top end who were not born at the time when we decided to join the EC. They pointed out that they really did not agree with any of us. They liked the idea of Europe because, after all, it is there. They liked free travel and all the simple things about it, but they did not like some of the other things about it.
Then, when I was consulting in the Clerks' Office just now, it occurred to me to ask, if I was not a heretic nor an infidel, what was I? I decided that I was a zealot, which is someone who passionately believes in a particular topic or subject. As a zealot I say that, when one looks back, plus ca change. Then one remembers the cartoon of two small children, one male and the other female, peering down at each other and the phrase vive la difference!
We should now seek to go all out to promote la difference. We have had enough of trying to be the same. If we do not like something, we should speak about it. I do not want to have a European passport. In fact I might even try to cheat and never have one of those funny little red things. I do not want a European number on my car. I do not want a German car. I have prejudices, but I have a form of patriotic feeling within me. I think back and look at our own history and where our Writ came from, and I feel tremendous loyalty to the Queen and the Royal Family. There are six sovereigns within the EC.
I support this Bill because it will soon be gone. It is another stage which gives us the chance to influence and advance on other people and make our own views felt. If we complain of bureaucracy, certainly one of our problems in this country is bureaucracy—the bureaucracy of the Treasury. If we could export our own bureaucrats into the system abroad, we would have a much better run operation, because they could run better and greater things than a small country like our own. I sit down with the phrase, "I will die for my Queen; I will die for my country, but I will not die for Europe".
8.39 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, we have heard a quite remarkable speech from a man who forgot to bring his glasses, but I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, speak previously and he did not have his glasses with him then either. I do not believe that he uses his glasses except as a kind of prop which he produces from time to time to confuse us. I am a little like him in some ways (although I have got my glasses on) in that I am not a dedicated European but nor am a dedicated non-European.
Older Members of your Lordships' House might remember the great debate in the 1970s which was instituted by Sir Edward Heath when he was Prime Minister. I think that it took place while we were deciding whether to enter the Common Market, as we called it in those days. I opposed entry at that time because I thought that it was a mistake. I can remember debating the matter during the great debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in her then constituency of Hitchin. She won the debate hands down, which was either because she was a better debater than me, which is likely enough, or because they were her constituents and they were devoted to her, which is also quite likely although that wore off after a bit. I was defeated in that debate (among others) on the great debate. When the time came to have a referendum, many years later, I thought that as we were in I would vote in favour of staying in, because I do not think that there is any great point in fighting old battles, except very old battles, and that was too recent.
Our presence in the Common Market—the Community—has turned out much as I expected during the great debate in the early 1970s. It has turned out disappointing to both factions. It was neither as glorious as the pro-marketeers had told us (and expected) that it would be—nor was it actually as bad as those of us who were opposed to entry had feared that it might be. I see the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, turning towards me so I shall say that, on the whole, I think that the "down" side was rather stronger than the "up" side—but only marginally.
However, it is too late to come out. We are deeply in and there is nowhere to go. When we debated this in the 1970s we thought that there were some alternatives and we laid them out but, as an earlier speaker said, those alternatives no longer exist, so I support the treaty. We are in the Community. It has not turned out to be as bad as we feared nor as good as we had hoped, but we are in and we have to go with the stream because the stream will not turn away.
That brings me to the question that underlies much of the opposition to the treaty and which was well and passionately expressed earlier today at the beginning of the debate by my old personal friend the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. He spoke passionately in favour of the sovereignty of Britain. I was impressed by his passion but amazed that he should feel that way because the noble Viscount lost his sovereignty about 400 years ago. He seems not to have noticed. In the meantime, he has become a passionate Britisher—or so it seemed today—although I believe that beneath his Britishness there lurks something more desirable.
628
There is, however, a lesson to be learned from his passion, and it is this: if so real a Welshman can become, over the passage of time, a passionate Britisher, is it just remotely possible that a Britisher could eventually become a partly passionate European? It is harder, I know, but for a Welshman most things are possible.
In that respect, I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who said earlier that if we lose our sovereignty, laws might be passed in Brussels against the will of the elected representatives in Britain. There is nothing new about that. It will be within the recollection of the House that laws have been passed in this assembly against the will of the elected Members of Scotland. There are hardly any Conservatives in Scotland and there are hardly any elected Members in Scotland who approve of many of the laws that have been passed here, so there is nothing new in that particular argument. It is something to which people in elected representative assemblies become accustomed, and just as the Scots have got used to it, up to a point, in London, so will the English get used to it in Brussels (or wherever these things are eventually to be carried out) if they are as adaptable as the Welsh and the Scots.
That brings me to the whole question of the nation state and subsidiarity. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, made some play in her notable speech about the nation state. The first question which arises is: has the nation state been such a good thing anyway? I shall not go into that in too great a length because time is getting on. Secondly, are the nation states, about which she talked, all that old? How old are they? We know that the United Kingdom goes back to 1707. It was modified in 1801 and again in 1922. Who among us will put his hand on his heart and say that that modification of 1922 will last for ever? I should have thought that the Irish dimension in the United Kingdom would change within our lifetimes—and I sincerely hope that it does, in some peaceable manner. Therefore, the nation state is not as ancient as might be thought.
Let us take Germany as an example. Germany might be thought to be about 150 years old but, by another accountancy, the reunited Germany is two years old. It is very new. That reunification is possibly part of our economic problem. Italy is 150 years old and Belgium is about 170 years old. In terms of history, they are relatively new. And have they done all that marvellously well? Let us think of the nation states in the communaute des patries, as it has been called. Let us think about how their economies have been a generalised shambles, and let us think about their quite remarkable performance over the question of Bosnia. How on earth could a federal state (should such a thing occur, and it would not frighten me if it did) make a greater mess of things in Bosnia than the communaute des patries has managed to do in recent years? I do not think that that point is arguable.
So, there is no magic about the existing states and I believe that the concept of subsidiarity should replace them. Subsidiarity should not necessarily stop at the Channel or here in Westminster. Subsidiarity would shine every bit as brightly in Cardiff, for

629
instance, or in Belfast—and certainly in Edinburgh and, preferably, even in Glasgow. It might even shine brightly in Leeds or Plymouth if the people of Leeds or Plymouth wished such a thing. It is up to them.
Subsidiarity need not relate merely to the nation state, because it is a subsidiarity of regions. Those regions might be former nations such as Scotland, Wales, Tuscany, Northern Italy or Schleswig-Holstein. Why should Schleswig-Holstein be part of Germany just because Bismarck seized it? That is a parenthesis. I do not wish to pursue it too far. Those regions have every right to enjoy the benefits of subsidiarity as much as the so-called and, I believe, outdated nation states. If that sounds as if I am in favour of some kind of federalism to replace the nation states with a body of smaller organisations with a central power, that is something of which I am not frightened. I am not in a hurry, but if it happens I shall be quite pleased.
That brings me to the issue of a common currency. We need a common currency for one reason and one reason only: it is hardly likely that we can make a single market work with a multiplicity of currencies, bureaucratic exchanges of currency and speculators in the currency business. It is possible to make the system work, but it is not the right way to do it. There again, we can look at our own history. We set up a single market in the United Kingdom 300 years ago. What did we do? We established a common currency. It was called the pound sterling. I do not believe that there is anyone in the Chamber, no matter how opposed that person is to the common currency, who would stand up and say, "Bring back the Scots pound and the groat". Those things have gone, and the pound sterling can happily go with them.
We have been told that the treaty would lead to increased centralism. That might well be right, but it comes ill from the Benches opposite, because we have had an increase in centralisation in this country over the past 10 or 12 years which has been remarkable. It has been centralisation from local government to central government here in London. The principle is the same. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
The opponents of the treaty are falling into an old British trap. It may well be an English trap. It is that if there is something to be done, or some organisation to be joined, they will always do it or join it when it is too late to influence it properly. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew our attention to the conference at Messina in 1956 or so.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, 1955.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am sorry, it was 1955. Right at the beginning the Government took the wrong step. If they had taken the right step then the entire structure would be different. They took the wrong step then, and what is interesting is that in the natural English way they took the wrong step again every time that the step was offered to them. They are doing it again. What they want to do is to behave like King Canute, but with one difference. Canute, your Lordships will remember, tried to put his feet in the
630
tide to demonstrate that the tide could not be held back. On the other hand, the opponents of the treaty are putting their feet in the tide in the hope that it will go back. They should know better, and soon they will.
I wish to make a remark about the referendum. Although I believe that we should ratify the treaty, abide by it, support it, and make it work, I support the notion of a referendum. I do not do that because of any thought of party manifestos at the last general election. I have always regarded party manifestos as a species of imaginative literature. I have hardly ever read one. I am astonished that other members of the House have gone so far as to read the party manifestos, even in the days where they had to stand for election. What is certain is that the voters do not read the manifestos, nor are they weighed or swayed in any way by what is in them. That is an irrelevance. It is a debating point.
The reason for having a referendum is a simple one. There are a number of issues of great importance which have nothing to do with party politics. Constitutional issues are among them, even though party politics might impinge upon them a little. When a constitutional measure is proposed, the people should be asked. There is only one reason why they should be asked. That is because it is right to do so. The people probably understand the issues as well as we do, but if it turns out that they do not, it is up to the politicians to explain them and to teach people.
It is just possibly too late for a referendum, not for the reason given by the leader of my party, my noble friend Lord Richard—that the matter has taken too long to go through Parliament—but because the referendum should probably have been held on the single market issue. The single market did the things which the treaty is now putting into treaty form. The Maastricht Treaty, whether or not it goes away in due course as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, should be supported. I believe that we should have a referendum to validate our support for it.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, early in the debate several speakers asked for some show of enthusiasm for the Bill from these Benches. Since then, we have had some, and I am happy to declare my wholehearted and enthusiastic support for the Bill, to outline some of the reasons why I feel so and why I welcome the next steps towards European monetary and political union.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has just said, with great humour and imagination, too often the debate has seemed to have been about whether this country should become a part of Europe. That decision, as he said, was taken a long time ago, and if Maastricht were to fall we would, at best, be back where we were before, with all the examples of interference in the minutiae of national regulations still remaining. The treaty establishes the supremacy of the Council of Ministers over the Commission. Enhanced by the decisions that were taken at Edinburgh, it provides thereby a better democratic accountability from individual Governments to the central European structure. Furthermore, it provides,

631
in the simple principle of subsidiarity, that the burden of proof for the need for Community action rests with the Community. To quote the words of the treaty, the Community can take action:
"only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States".
That principle takes us away from much that has irritated in the past, and it has already begun to work. I understand that over 30 items of legislation have already been dropped because they fail the subsidiarity test.
One of the best examples of the principle of subsidiarity in practice lies in the area of education, vocational training and culture. It is right for us to give a few moments of attention to those important, even if more low key, aspects of the treaty, and to reflect upon what has been achieved and what will be better accomplished now. Articles 126, 127 and 128 of the treaty provide that the Community shall contribute to:
"the development of quality education,"
—a goal to which we should all subscribe—
"the implementation of a vocational training policy and the flowering of the cultures of the members states while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore".
In all three of those areas the measures which the council takes to achieve objectives and to create incentives specifically exclude any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the member states.
It would be difficult to over-emphasise the importance of Community action in respect of education and vocational training. One important long-term aspect of the European Community is the opportunity and Community finance for young people to study in any country of the Community during their courses while obtaining credit for such study towards the degree or qualification of their home university.
In the past few years tens of thousands of British students have spent part of their undergraduate or postgraduate studies in another European country. Many courses now embrace a European community of students with young people from six or seven different Community countries studying together. Under this programme for student mobility—known as Erasmus not only as an acronym but also to recall to us the tradition from the Middle Ages of trans-European university study—students can, for example, enhance their studies of business or economics, architecture or engineering by study and industrial work placement in the businesses of a second European country. Equally, under the Community-financed Lingua programme students are encouraged to widen their study of European languages, becoming competent in the technical and business language of other countries as well as in everyday conversation.
These educational opportunities are mirrored in the opportunities for vocational training where, coupled with the improved fluency in languages, the aim is to create a mobile workforce at home with the industrial, commercial and professional practices of any member state of the Community and contributing to the Community's overall wealth and competitive position within the world market.
632
In the field of culture few would dispute that our culture is more than any individual nation's alone. We in the United Kingdom are, and have been for centuries, part of the mainstream of European culture. The history of the philosophers, artists and writers of Europe stretches far beyond the boundaries of any single nation. In days when travel was infinitely less easy than it is today we marvel at characters such as Eleanor of Acquitaine who in the 12th century seemed to stride across Europe spreading the romantic culture of the courtly musicians and poets of her home country throughout her adopted land of England to Spain, Italy and beyond. Since the days when the Caesars of Rome united Europe under their benign military rule bringing law, architecture, literature, technology, music and a common language, there has always been more to unite the countries of western Europe than there has been to divide us. How right it is that the Treaty of Maastricht should reaffirm the dissemination of the culture and history of European peoples; that it should conserve and safeguard the European cultural heritage and the European artistic and literary creation.
Under Maastricht the Community would provide education, training and employment on a multinational basis. One can only hope that this will help our still under-achieving country to achieve some of the educational standards taken for granted in countries such as Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and France where I personally have seen students performing at a level far above that achieved by our own 15 and 16 year-olds.
It is because of the power of this vision of a culturally united Europe that I personally hope we proceed with commitment and enthusiasm along the path towards monetary union. The negotiating skills of our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have allowed us more time to consider the UK's position within the European monetary system. My noble friend Lord Carrington is right that it will in any case take Europe a very long time indeed to achieve that goal. But it is essential that in the steps towards union Britain plays a leading role and is not assigned to a role of a shrinking violet or, perhaps even worse, a permanent wallflower with whom nobody wants to dance.
Of course we have an emotional attachment to our own currency. It carries with it echoes of childhood pocket money and of the purchasing power of our youth. But the preservation of national currencies within a common market has never been a permanent option and it is an expensive and wasteful way to run economic union. I was vividly reminded of this when a week or two ago I had to make a short visit to northern Sweden. As I left Heathrow airport I cashed £50 sterling into Swedish krona to allow for airport taxis and other minor expenses. In the event my hosts met me at the airport and drove me back later, and my hotel bill and my air fare were paid by the British Council. I therefore returned to Heathrow with my wallet unopened and the krona that I had received for my £50 still intact. However, when I changed those krona back into pounds sterling I received just £42. The fluctuating exchange rate and the costs of the two

633
exchange transactions had in two days reduced my £50 by almost 16 per cent. Envisage this on the massive scale of inter-country market trading and we have not a minor amused irritation but some view of how expensive these separate currencies can be.
I wish to say a final word about what we are led to believe by the opponents of the treaty is the ultimate bogey of political union. Much of this debate is not about practicalities; it is about emotion and about deeply-felt instincts and childhood memories. For many of us in this House the memories of Europe's recent past—the past of our childhood or our youth—are still vivid. There are memories of the battlefields of Normandy or Italy and memories of the Blitz and the destruction of the great cities in Holland, Germany and Britain. I too was a frightened small child in 1940 hiding in the cellar of my parents' house. I was brought up to love and to be proud of my country, as I still am. But I also believe that the vision of political union is the only real alternative to the narrow nationalist rhetoric which caused centuries of that kind of war and destruction which we have seen throughout the history of Europe.
Citizenship of Europe, yes, perhaps, with rights and duties including an overriding loyalty not replacing our loyalty and love of our own country but enhancing it by something greater. This is not just a price worth paying; it is a prize to be fought for and treasured. It is that vision which this Bill offers long-term as a goal towards which it takes us one more step. It is a step which we must take for our children and grandchildren because, as has already been said, no alternative has been offered. I believe that the alternative is unthinkable.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I find myself on a tightrope on this issue; a typical position for an academic, you may believe. I speak as a pro-European anti-federalist for whom the Maastricht Treaty is a pretty tawdry flag under which to have to sail. It is a treaty full of contradictions and dangerous where it is not irrelevant. It offers us neither spiritual nourishment, a safe future nor material reassurance. Yet I agree with those who say that we should ratify it, put it behind us and move on. We have wasted too much time on the debate: critics warn us against things which will not happen; supporters claim triumphs of British diplomacy invisible to the naked eye; most of us ignore the real dangers which threaten and the real opportunities which beckon in the 1990s.
In his speech to the Conservative Political Centre European Conference on 20th February the Foreign Secretary hailed Maastricht as beginning a process of decentralisation. He cited acceptance of the principle of subsidiarity and the three pillar concept of the Community in support.
I do not see it in that way. I know that the word "subsidiarity" has many subtle overtones but to me its root is "subsidiary". Subsidiary means secondary or subordinate. A subsidiary company is owned by
634
another. To invoke the principle of subsidiarity in defence of national jurisdiction is already to use federalist language.
The Foreign Secretary gave the game away when he talked about "the decentralising principle of subsidiarity". You can only decentralise from a centre. I should not concede that there exists an independent centre of political authority in the Community from which powers must be repatriated. That is federalist gobbledegook.
The Foreign Secretary made great play of the fact that two of the new Union's three pillars—foreign and security policy, home affairs and justice—give rise to no new Community powers. We are assured without the trace of a smile that the Commission will have no exclusive right over initiative on foreign policy. But before Maastricht, it had no right at all in those areas and there was only one pillar; namely, the Economic Community. Now there are three. Moreover, the treaty sets up a single institutional framework for all three, culminating in the Council of Ministers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said rightly that Community foreign policy can be made only by unanimity. But can anyone doubt that the pressure will soon be on to extend the qualified majority voting rules which now apply to the single market also to the other two pillars? What has happened is that skilful diplomacy by John Major and Douglas Hurd has won temporary concessions from the centralisers, but Maastricht in conception represents a step forward towards federalism and away from confederalism. It seems to be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
I look now at the other side. The critics have spent a great deal of time warning us against monetary union. They say that a single currency is not necessary to complete the single market; and I agree. They say that its real purpose is to be the building block of a European state; and I agree. If you deprive a state of the right to adjust to a shock by altering the value of its currency, you must have a system of automatic transfers from the centre to make life tolerable for the afflicted state. At present the European Community budget is far too small to do that so it must be enlarged. Therefore, the power of the centre must be enlarged also.
There are strong technical arguments against delegating monetary authority to a central bank charged with maintaining price stability. I am very much in favour of price stability—who is not?—but that is only one goal of macro-economic policy, although no doubt it is the most important. It is odd to declare it to be the only goal at a time when unemployment in the EC averages 10 per cent. That kind of bankers' regime, if it ever came to pass, would intensify pressure for putting a political authority above the European central bank. If Keynes taught us anything, it was that output and employment are too important to be left to bankers.
But does anyone now believe that the next two stages of monetary union will come to pass either in the time span or in the form envisaged by the treaty? Surely they do not. Currently the preconditions for Stage 3 are met by only two of the 12; that is, France

635
and Luxembourg. By 1996 how many of the 12 will have had behind them the two years of EMS membership at unchanged parities which is another precondition of monetary union?
If monetary union occurs at all—and it is a big if—it will be multi-speed with not all members joining at the same time and others joining who are not part of the EC. Leaving aside our own special opt-out arrangements, that is one of those blueprints which cannot be made to happen quickly on a European-wide scale and can be made to happen for any individual state only as a result of a conscious, sovereign decision to run monetary and fiscal policy in a certain way. If one thing is certain it is that twixt that cup and lip, there will be many a slip and it is not worth spending too much time worrying about the quality of the wine.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that in other respects Maastricht reflects more the atmosphere of the 1980s than the dangers and possibilities of the 1990s. The strong drive towards political and economic integration in Western Europe was a West European phenomenon that was born originally of the desire to overcome Franco-German rivalry, and was latterly driven by the exigencies of the Cold War. The tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989 has removed much of its inherent logic, while disclosing new problems for which different kinds of institutions and arrangements will he needed.
Deepening the Community, which is the goal of Maastricht, requires a higher degree of consensus than that which now exists, while the costs of German reunification are already straining the existing consensus. Beyond deepening the Community, what relevance does the tight little club of six that was envisaged by the founding fathers have to the Community of 20 or more members that are likely by the end of the century? One cannot deepen and widen at the same time without creating a multi-tier membership, so divergent are the conditions between Western and Eastern Europe. If widening is the name of the game, the priority surely is to extend free trade to the East and not to tighten up the Brussels screws in a vain attempt to create a level playing field in the West. The opening to the East will impose costs on an already sclerotic Western Europe, thus reinforcing existing strong protectionist pressures. That pressure will be all the greater if we are absent from Europe's counsels.
The end of the Cold War has completely transformed the security situation. The NATO system which bound together the United States and Western Europe in opposition to the Warsaw Pact has lost much of its raison d'être. That situation has suggested to many Europeans the need for a serious European military capability, and the second pillar of the treaty has reflected that suggestion. However, another pattern is in place for security arrangements: American leadership, legitimised by British and French co-operation in the UN Security Council, a body from which Germany remains excluded. We have a crucial role to play in bridging the two security systems.
636
Maastricht was intended to give a reunited Germany a benevolent role in the European family, but a reopened Central and Eastern Europe may prove to be a powerful enough attraction to draw a reunited and distracted Germany into its old dream of Mitteleuropa and away from France and a Western confederacy. A German dominated Mitteleuropa under the present circumstances might well favour a Russo-German alliance, a belated triumph of Gorbachev's diplomacy and perhaps for Russia's European strategy throughout much of the Cold War.
As a counterweight, France might then re-orient itself towards Britain and the Atlantic Alliance and pursue de Gaulle's old dream of a tri polar directorate for global policy. Such a diplomatic revolution, if it took place, would presumably spell the end of the great post-war experiment to reconcile France and Germany and build a powerful European confederation around them. Do we want that to happen? Should we not be there in order to use our influence to stop that happenin?
As I look into my crystal ball, I do not see the emergence of a powerful West European super state so much as the impairment of what has already been achieved. That is why Britain should do nothing to impair its influence on what happens in the 1990s, which a rejection of Maastricht would certainly do. It would be a paradox, though not an improbable one, if Britain should turn out to be the anchor of political and economic stability in the Europe of the 1990s, fighting not against a new super state but against the centrifugal forces that were unleashed at the end of the Cold War.
I turn briefly to the issue of the referendum, only because I have something to say that has not already been said. If my remarks have any validity, the Maastricht conception—to use the phrase of my noble friend Lord Carrington—is even more of a hypothesis than he allowed. I am instinctively opposed to a referendum on a hypothesis. The situation was different in 1975: then it was a question of whether we left or stayed in the Community. This time the referendum would concern whether we enact a treaty which contains plans and tendencies which we may dislike but which are very unlikely to come to pass.
Opposition to European Union is dictated far more, I suspect, by fear, panic and lack of self-confidence than by reverence for our island traditions, although I accept that that reverence is genuine among many of the opponents of Maastricht. Were we a self-confident nation, we would not be conducting the debate in these terms. The tone of our leaders is defensive and reluctant. I do not want us to whinge outside the Community but to fight within it for our alternative vision—a vision which is generous and welcoming to a liberal Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals but unyielding in its opposition to bureaucracy and centralisation.
My noble friend Lady Thatcher understood the need for an alternative vision when she made her Bruges speech in 1988. However, its tone was too negative to evoke any European response. We need to discover the art of expressing generous ideas in our own distinctive language. Since the war Europe has

637
been made what it is by words far more than by deeds. If we can find the right words now we still have a chance of shaping a Europe closer to our desires. I urge the House not to throw that chance away.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and instructive debate with some remarkable and a few memorable speeches. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who gave a most interesting and reflective speech. I am surprised only by his choice of reading matter in that he was apparently looking for spiritual nourishment in reading the Treaty of Maastricht. That is perhaps an odd place to look for spiritual nourishment.
I note also with some amusement the actions of those responsible for controlling the temperature of our House, as it would appear that the authorities were expecting a far more heated atmosphere to develop than has been the case.
I am one of those who welcome the appearance of the Bill in this House. I wish it had come sooner. Looking back I doubt whether anything has been gained by the delay in proceeding with the Bill. The decision to halt its progress in another place after the result of the first Danish referendum did not produce any benefits for us in this country and it greatly increased the uncertainties here and elsewhere in Europe. I believe it would have been much better to have allowed the Bill to proceed on its normal course, notwithstanding the decision of the Danes in their first referendum.
I believe there was something ignominious about waiting for our Danish friends to make up their minds first. I believe the original timetable should have been pursued. Instead the delay has been damaging to our standing and influence abroad. The message we conveyed to our European partners was not, as we promised, that we were aiming to be at the heart of Europe. Rather we have shown ourselves to be among the faint-hearted, the uncertain and above all the disputatious. It will take us a long time to recover from this position in the European Community.
However, the Bill having arrived at last, I hope we may deal with it as expeditiously as possible and pass it without amendment. It is true that the provisions are now somewhat dated, particularly as regards the timetable towards European economic and monetary union. It is fashionable to argue in some quarters that the events of last September have consigned the objective of EMU to limbo, but I suggest that we must be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from Black Wednesday. I suggest that what that episode showed was that those managing our financial affairs did not fully understand how overvalued our currency had become. Of course it is always easier to recognise these things with hindsight but overvalued the currency certainly was given that the domestic inflation rate in this country since we joined the ERM greatly exceeded that elsewhere in the system. What we should recognise now, I suggest, is that as the recession wears off inflationary pressures may well
638
resume. If that is the case, we shall again become conscious of the importance of fluctuating exchange rates on internal prices and on export orders.
Therefore, the objective of the EMU is not necessarily wrong; rather we need to pay more attention to convergence policies in the period preceding the Union. I was glad to note recently a speech by Herr Tietmeyer, the vice president of the Bundesbank, who emphasised the importance of maintaining strict convergence criteria. Surely he is right about that. If the dates in this part of the treaty now appear unduly ambitious we should not abandon the entire policy on that account. Those who do not share that view can be reassured by the explicit reservation in the United Kingdom protocol attached to the treaty.
I must emphasise to those noble Lords who appear not to understand or believe this that it remains for this country to decide whether it wishes to move to Stage 3 of the economic and monetary union and to move to a single currency. Nor is there any obligation in the treaty for us to join, or rejoin, the exchange rate mechanism. Those elements in the treaty are surely sufficient safeguards for the protection of our national interests and for decision by Parliament when the time comes. That is also contained in the treaty.
The treaty also meets our national requirements in the important articles covering defence questions and on matters relating to justice and security problems; namely, those dealing with fraud, drugs and immigration. It is a very satisfactory outcome that the defence subjects are to be handled by the Western European Union and that justice and security matters will be dealt with on the basis of intergovernmental co-operation. That is a wholly new departure in the evolution of Community institutions and a significant gain for this country. It is our own preferred way of handling those subjects. It would be most unfortunate if those gains were not secured by ratification of the treaty.
The decisions which Parliament will take on the treaty are highly significant for our future foreign and defence policies. We should be in no doubt about the message we should be giving to our partners if we decide not to ratify: that we have rejected the new and broader relationship which our Government have obtained and which our partners have offered to us. Their reaction cannot be predicted with any certainty should we reject the treaty, but in my judgment failure to ratify would lead to the creation of a tighter union by the original six signatories of the Treaty of Rome. By opting out we would confine ourselves to a subsidiary role on the fringe of Europe, not participating in the decisions of the inner group but remaining vitally affected by the outcome. I cannot believe that that would be in our long-term interest.
Perhaps I may reply to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, and other noble Lords, that the fact that we have a massive deficit on our visible trade with other member states somehow gives us a bargaining counter over them. I do not follow that line of reasoning. It does not seem to me that if we were to leave the EC we would be better able to cope with the situation from the outside,

639
unless it is proposed that one should resort to protectionist measures to control imports in the old fashioned way. The only remedy in this situation is surely to increase the efficiency of our own manufacturing industry and to maximise our exports to EC markets.
I also beg to differ from those noble Lords who have argued in favour of a referendum on the treaty. I shall not go into that argument now as there may well be opportunities for us to address the subject more fully in later stages of the Bill, but I would expect to vote against any amendment to that effect.
I suggest one other reflection on ratification to your Lordships; that is, that the only meaningful decision to be taken by Parliament with regard to ratification of a treaty is whether or not to proceed with it. Certainly there may be important subsidiary matters to be dealt with, notably to ensure that our domestic laws coincide with the provisions of the treaty which we ratify, but the essential point before us is whether to ratify or not to ratify. We cannot pick and choose those parts which we like and those which we do not like. Those of your Lordships who are unhappy with the treaty and the Bill will therefore, it seems to me, be obliged in the real world of international politics to present us with amendments which seek to delay the Bill until certain other requirements or assurances have been obtained. I do not expect to be able to support such amendments myself. I agree with those who believe that the time for such arguments is past. I speak in favour of the Bill without alteration and for its rapid passage. I shall vote in Divisions to that effect and I urge other noble Lords to do the same.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, today's debate—which some people have thought perhaps unnecessary—seems to me one of considerable interest, and will be for the future historian, because we see coming together two conspiracies: first, the conspiracy of a group of political leaders in Europe to create, under the pretext of ending age-old conflict, the framework for a super state, a European Union, a United States of Europe; and, secondly, an attempt by Her Majesty's Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the leaders of our principal political parties to disguise the fact that that conspiracy is alive and well. If one needs an illustration of what I mean by the second conspiracy, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges is ample evidence.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, perhaps I may invite the noble Lord to make his meaning a little clearer. Is he suggesting that I am a conspirator? To what conspiracy am I a party?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am suggesting that the noble Lord is a conspirator in the conspiracy of the great and the good to force on the people of this country a treaty that they clearly do not want.
Let me take the much more important conspiracy. As has been referred to by a number of speakers, notably in a moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, at the end of the war there was a perfectly reasonable, indeed inevitable, desire to end
640
the conflict which had scarred the European Continent. However, there were two possible ways of doing that. One was that the nations should, while retaining their independence, make friends with each other and find areas in which they could co-operate, as indeed they had been forced to co-operate economically under the Marshall Plan. The other way—that of M. Jean Monnet and his friends—was to create a superstate.
The history of Europe since that time has been a kind of dialogue between those two conceptions of Europe. It would take the remainder of the night to go into the detail. As some noble Lords know, I have written on this subject a pamphlet called A Tale of Two Europes of which noble Lords will find a copy in the Library. However, if any noble Lord wishes to study it personally and in detail I shall be glad to present him with a copy because I believe that the material which I have derived, not least from the diaries of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead —I believe that he favoured us with his presence earlier today—gives one a good deal of evidence on the side of those who were endeavouring to create that superstate.
The difficulty has been all along—and the speeches that have been made in favour of the Treaty of Maastricht today show that it continues—that successive British governments have continued to persuade themselves that they could, by somehow participating in that enterprise, persuade the countries of continental Europe to go along the lines which they themselves preferred.
Much has been said, for example, about the importance of world trade, of GATT. People have even said that to ratify the Treaty of Maastricht would be a step on the road to the ratification of GATT. But anyone who has followed the activities of the Community over the past few months and years knows that the hereditary, perfectly respectable but very different protectionism of France, which has been there since the days of Louis XIV and Colbert, has always triumphed over those who believed in greater free trade. Therefore, the argument that somehow or other this is a path towards greater trade in the world, towards expanding the world economy, seems to me incapable of being upheld.
Another point which has been made concerns enlargement. That is to say that we should not limit ourselves to the current members of the European Community who talk of that as though those countries were Europe. Europe is a much larger area, as noble Lords have pointed out. There are other European countries with great and important histories and with great and important futures before them. Yet we are witnessing a clear determination, again fuelled by French protectionism, not to give these nascent democracies the minimum chance for which they ask to participate in our economic well-being. Every time they find something that they would like to sell us, the Community decides that it is too competitive to permit.
Thus, it is total hypocrisy to suggest that our membership of this body, fortified by the Treaty of Maastricht, would contribute to any extent whatever

641
in solving the serious problems of central and eastern Europe. It is no good saying: "We will get in and make the Community less inward-looking". As noble Lords have pointed out, we have been a member of the Community now for decades and it is no more outward-looking than it was in the beginning.
Therefore, it seems to me that we are perfectly entitled to look at the treaty and to see what it involves. I have sat through nearly all the debate and it is notable that the only people who have talked about the text of the treaty have been those who were concerned to call attention to its deficiencies. There were lashings of sentiment about how we feel at one with Europe, the great enthusiasm of the younger generation. All that kind of sentiment comes from the supporters of the treaty. The nitty-gritty, the attention to detail, has come from the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Parkinson, who have analysed what the treaty says.
Let me take one example which has been referred to only fleetingly: the creation, under Article 8, of a common citizenship with common duties. Citizenship is a very important aspect of a political community. Our parliamentary system and our parliamentary monarchy are based on the conception of British citizenship. It has been made quite clear—not by opponents of the treaty but by supporters of it, the people gathered under the banner of Charter 88—that one of the results which they would expect from Maastricht coming into effect, with Article 8, is that there will be no room in such a united states of Europe for anything as anomalous as the British House of Lords or the British monarchy.
There is a serious question for noble Lords to ask themselves; namely, how their Oath of Allegiance would conform with the duties to M. Delors and his colleagues which the treaty asks them to assume. This is a serious problem, and it has not been tackled in any of the expositions from the Foreign Office that have been offered from time to time. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has been repeatedly asked in this House whether she can define those duties. She has said that they are indefinable. To sign ourselves up to undefined duties would seem reckless even to the wildest of speculators.
My own feelings are quite different from those which have moved other people to suggest that the treaty should not be proceeded with. Although people say that Britain would become a kind of minor, marginal offshore island doomed to some kind of poverty—like Singapore or Hong Kong, one of those "unfortunate" islands with very little in the way of resources other than human resources—I believe that we have in this country human resources and natural resources which, if we were properly governed, could make us a country which would have weight in the world. The reason that we are not properly governed is that our Government have already lost a feeling of responsibility. They feel bound on so many issues to say: we will see what the Community thinks about it.
Let us take the example of agriculture. Does anyone seriously deny that we would give an enormous boost to the prosperity of this country and
642
of every individual family if we contracted out of the common agricultural policy? I have yet to come across anyone in this country who thinks that it is a good idea. But we are told that it was a pre-condition of Community membership. So until recently we had the Minister for agriculture, Mr. Gummer, behaving as a type of Brussels errand boy. Backwards and forwards he went across the Channel bringing instructions as to how British farmers were to pay, how British slaughter-houses were to be closed, or whatever else it might suit the Commission to think of at that time. I had hoped that with the reshuffle—and we all have hopes of reshuffles—that there might be an improvement, because we now have a new Minister for agriculture. Is it likely that she will take us out of the common agricultural policy? Could dear Gillian be relied upon? Not if we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who goes about intoning as his favourite psalm: "Delors is my Shepherd". Noble Lords may think that is a joke. It is not intended as a joke.
I seriously believe that if we had had a government which said, "We are going to look at the problems of this country, at why we have unemployment and at a great many things that we have been distracted from" membership of the Community could have been an advantage. It has turned out to be for Ministers a perpetual alibi. The problem arises not, as people say, because the other place has taken so long over Maastricht but because the Government put this foolish treaty at the forefront of their ambitions instead of saying, "We haven't got time now for this kind of nonsense. Let us get on and run this country as this country deserves to be run". That is something which your Lordships may well wish to consider when looking at the treaty.
I come now to the second conspiracy, which is the one on which the demand for a referendum is based; namely, that the issue has never been placed before the people of this country because the three Front Benches in the other place and now this House have not wished it. They have all said, "This is for your good." But they are overlooking something which I find even more striking than their unwillingness to take in the lessons of history; that is, that they are unwilling to notice what is being said abroad. Practically everything that has been said in favour of the Maastricht Treaty in our debate today—that there would be greater openness and subsidiarity would mean a limitation of the powers of the centre—is constantly denied.
Only the other day Herr Kohl—one would think that he had other problems on his plate; but never mind, it is also an alibi for him as he need not worry about the neo-Nazis if he can go on with the European dream—and Monsieur Mitterrand get together and say, "Of course, the British are just being foolish and difficult. What we want is what we have always wanted: a single European state." So far from waiting until 1996 in order to have another look at the matter, they will have another summit this autumn. No doubt the Prime Minister will attend that summit—I fear that he will—and he may come back and say, "Game, set and match." I should be doubtful whether that would be justified. I rather feel that the British

643
representatives facing Herr Kohl and company are somewhat in the position of our English roses at Wimbledon up against Steffi Graf. It is game, set and match to Steffi Graf.
We are bound to say that there is a total discrepancy between what is said abroad and what we are being assured by our Government and the Opposition Front Benches, which are dominated by former commissioners so that they have little choice but to take that line. The Opposition Front Benches and our Government tell us one thing; the European leaders themselves tell us something else. Although I have some reason to be sceptical about what Herr Kohl, Monsieur Mitterrand, Monsieur Delors or Herr Bangemann may say on this issue, as regards what they want I think that they give us better evidence than we are given by those who interpret them to us.
9.47 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, we have heard some notable, remarkable and powerful speeches in this debate, in particular from my noble friends Lord Carrington, Lord Thorneycroft, Lord Howe, Lord Cockfield (which was full of nitty gritty), and Lord Skidelsky. It is clear that this Bill is of passionate and sustained interest to your Lordships. There was no disputing the passion in the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, whose mastery of your Lordships' House is only to be expected from one whose easy style on both the Back Benches and the Front Bench of another place distinguished a considerable career there. Nor is there any doubt about the wit and humour of my noble friend Lord Selsdon.
I have listened with great interest to speeches from both sides of the House that have expressed the fears of noble Lords about Britain's place in Europe, fears lest this—in the words of the greatest poet and playwright of our language—"demi-paradise … set in a silver sea" should in some way become tarnished by exposure to mainland European vapours.
But where were those words of that most English of writers, out of the mouth of that most English of princes, actually spoken? In the middle of France. Much has been said both in your Lordships' House and in another place of the loss of national identity and the dilution of the quintessential Englishness or Britishness of our culture. Was not Shakespeare himself as much a product of European culture as of his own? From Hamlet to Romeo, from Shylock to Caesar and from the merchant to the shrew, Shakespeare and his audience were as familiar with the history, mythology and culture of Europe as with that of their native heath.
Which of your Lordships can honestly say that Inigo Jones or Christopher Wren owed nothing to Italian architecture? Or that Mozart or Haydn had no influence on English composers? Or that among the great paintings of our great artists there are no echoes of Titian, Leonardo or El Greco? To look around your Lordships' House, the names, the titles, the very physiognomy of noble Lords and Ladies show the links between this country and the rest of continental Europe. Whether our ancestors were invaders, settlers
644
or perhaps seekers after booty, there are few in this place, in another place or in the country at large that cannot claim some descent from stock outside these islands.
Therefore the cultural argument is a weak one and, above all, it is an unself-confident one. Are we really so unsure of our national identity that we are as afraid of continental contamination as, for instance, General de Gaulle was of Anglo-Saxon attitudes? I am certain that we are secure in our traditions and national identities. Notwithstanding the arguments of noble Lords whose views I respect greatly and whose knowledge of the labyrinthine interstices of the constitution is far greater than mine, I do not believe that referenda are part of that tradition.
In this parliamentary democracy there have been referenda. But I believe that in the end the plebiscite is the refuge of the demagogue. I wonder whether noble Lords who are so keen on a referendum on the treaty would be equally keen to hold one on the abolition of blood sports, the reintroduction of capital punishment or even the reform of your Lordships' House or the removal of the hereditary privilege.
I am sure that we shall debate the Bill in Committee in great, even painful detail. While I must congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Bruce of Donington, in finding so much to amend in so short a Bill, if we are to debate each and every one of the 400 or so amendments that I believe they are contemplating, I fear that we are in for some long days and longer nights. I wonder whether some of the opponents of the Bill have the stomach for late nights in the Chamber. While my noble friend Lady Thatcher is sans pareil in marshalling her forces, will she be with us in the still watches of the night? I have less doubt that my noble friend Lord Tebbit will be in his place, for he appears to be taking on the image as portrayed in that excellent television programme, "Spitting Image", and only appearing after dark. But I am sure that he will be pleased to know that Transylvania has yet to apply to join the Community.
My greatest concern is not the detail of the Bill or even the detail of the Maastricht Treaty in its several guises, but the narrowness of vision that the argument seems to engender. We have lost the sense of horror that underlay the thinking of the founders of Europe. Twice in a generation conflict between the European powers has spread to world war, resulting in the death through war and disease of 160 million people. In the dawning of the nuclear age the founders saw that, if ever such a conflict were to happen again, Europe, the cradle of world civilisation, would be reduced to a mass of stinking radioactive rubble. We all know of the sad history of Britain's involvement in Europe since that first bright vision was shared by victors and vanquished alike, although I am sure that, in the eyes of my noble friend Lord Beloff, the shared vision or the shared belief becomes a conspiracy.
As a businessman, I know that closer links with Europe can do nothing but good and I shall not bother to rehearse the arguments about exports and the size of the European home market, for my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon has done more than justice to that theme. I believe profoundly that

645
Europe, with Britain at its heart, is always going to be a stronger, more responsible, more flexible and more accountable Europe than with us only dipping our toes into the Community pool. I believe that in the Maastricht Treaty there are safeguards that will allow Britain to put a brake on the rampant federalism of the Commission under its present leadership.
I also believe that the treaty strengthens the hand of the European Parliament, which, even at the expense of some diminution of the powers of national Parliaments, will mean that eventually power will reside where it should, in a democratically elected assembly. "Well, he would say that wouldn't he, as a prospective candidate for the European Parliament", I hear your Lordships mutter. It is precisely because I do believe in the European Parliament that I have thrown my hat into that electoral ring.
Of course I know, as do we all, that all is not right in Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg. We know too that power will not be given to the European Parliament. It will have to be won. It is fashionable to have a slogan, or a mission statement. Mine is simple. "More common sense in the common market". But the vision behind that simple message can be best summed up in the words of my noble predecessor, the first Lord Stockton, who in a speech in Leeds in 1975 said:
"Europe is not about butter mountains or wine lakes. What Europe is about is the fact that I was nearly killed in the First World War; my son was nearly killed in the Second World War; I do not want my grandson to be killed in the Third World War".
My Lords, he was right. I have not been.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, the advantage of speaking late in such an illustrious debate is that I can ignore all the major issues that have been so eloquently dealt with. I feel the most useful thing I can do is to deal with a detail in connection with subsidiarity. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, say that things are beginning to work. But that is not so in my experience. Subsidiarity is not working. I have not even seen a symptom or a whiff of it in the areas with which I am concerned. Perhaps I may cite one instance and assure your Lordships, in case you think that it is just one of my environmental hobby horses, that it has very great social and financial implications.
Some time last year the Commission issued a directive that the tonnage of heavy lorries would be increased to 40 tonnes. There was no question of asking or suggesting—it will be increased to 40 tonnes! This diktat by foreign officials has never been conveyed in any way to the British public and was never properly considered or debated by Parliament. However, the consequences are momentous. Whitehall, as is its usual custom, immediately responded and the Department of Transport thereupon set out new standards for checking the strength of bridges, both in beautiful and historic cities and in the depths of the British countryside. Thus, foreign juggernauts of gigantic environmental unfriendliness are being assisted by our own
646
government system to penetrate, pollute and spoil Britain without the nation ever being alerted, let alone having the opportunity to comment or express a view through its elected representatives. I am confident, after investigations, that this directive is of no conceivable benefit whatever to the United Kingdom or to anyone in this country. Very much the reverse is the case. It can only conceivably benefit the shareholders of the foreign haulage companies involved.
But that is only the start of the story. A professional assessment has now been carried out of all bridges by county authorities at the behest of the Department of Transport. In my county alone, for which I have the details, 140 bridges have been found unsafe for 40 tonners. Strengthening is already in hand or being planned. In that one county alone it will cost £35 million. Some counties are not as congested as others and the one I have quoted is less congested than most. But I have been as conservative as possible and have taken some professional guidance. The cost of strengthening bridges throughout the country could well be £500 million. I have still not come to the main point.
My main point is that I understand that there is no EC contribution for this work. Those EC officials who sent the directive are not even spending their own budget. EC officials are already instructing Whitehall how to spend our own taxpayers' money. I earnestly urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to investigate this question to see how far it has gone and ascertain whether it is really in the British interest and whether it can be concluded to be under the notion or concept of subsidiarity.
Therefore, this European Communities (Amendment) Bill should include a subsidiary clause rejecting absolutely bureaucratic intrusion from Europe in the domestic affairs of this country, and spelling things out in no uncertain terms. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal referred to subsidiarity tests being carried out. I believe he said that that was being done by European officials in Brussels. In my view, that is simply not good enough. They must be carried out and considered, perhaps in consultation, by our own Ministers and Government at home. That is one instance for which I can vouch for the cost.
There are numerous others about which one wonders. The cost to our Exchequer of the only instance I have mentioned might amount to £500 million. There may be other instances which perhaps bring the total to billions of pounds. That is an aspect of the greatest possible concern. Subsidiarity at this stage seems to mean nothing whatever. It is not worth the paper it is written on because I am not sure that it is written on paper at all in any detail. Until we know what it means then it cannot be taken as anything more than a notion and even as a carrot for those who are deeply concerned about the whole thing.
There are other issues which I shall not go into at this late hour. But they all point to the same thing: the reluctance or inability on this side of the Channel to challenge what is being done by officials on the other side. Agriculture has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I have also been involved in, and

647
raised in the House, certain questions concerning agri-chemicals. I have been unable to obtain any conclusive or convincing response from Ministers and even letters three pages long to myself as a farmer are practically incomprehensible. I am now convinced that the reason is, as has been suggested, that everybody is waiting to find out what Brussels is going to decide or what it intends to say on that particular issue.
Another instance concerns the ownership of ITV companies which we discussed in a debate that I initiated recently. The ITV companies are in danger of being taken over by foreign business. At the same time, our own people are debarred from taking over European companies. Apparently, the answer is that Brussels and the EC should harmonise the arrangements throughout the whole of Europe. Can noble Lords conceive anything more idiotic or pointless? The characteristics and nature of different countries and nationalities have already been mentioned.
Why in God's name should we harmonise who owns television in different countries? What do we care who owns television in Spain, Luxembourg or Greece? What business is it of theirs who owns it here in the United Kingdom? That is a clear case for subsidiarity and nothing whatever to do with anybody else, or how things should be harmonised. The next stage from that is instructing what schedules and programmes should be shown. No doubt after that there will he a hint that programmes critical of Brussels might be unwelcome. It is a very short step from that to the theatre, cinema and what went on in the Soviet Union over the past 70 years.
There was mention on Sunday of British services in the Falkland Islands, which is British territory. The resident services there are not allowed to eat British lamb produced by local British farmers, because the poor slaughterhouse in Stanley does not come up to the standard laid down by some bloke in Brussels who has probably never even been abroad. Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friends on the Front Bench that this really needs urgent determination because I believe that however important the constitutional and economic issues, the British public really mind about those aspects of subsidiarity—and I have only touched on the tip of the iceberg.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, it is now 18 months since the treaty was signed in December 1991 and I cannot help feeling worried at the contrast between British momentum in the 18 months before the signing of the treaty and in the 18 months since. In the intensive negotiations leading up to our signature, John Major, Douglas Hurd and the whole of the team were involved not only at the centre of Europe, but at the centre of intense negotiations in which they were striving not only to get a treaty, but to get a treaty that was right for Britain and right for Europe, and they succeeded, giving a lead which others followed.
In the 18 months since then, Britain has given the impression of dragging her feet. There was some criticism in earlier speeches of the pace at which the Government introduced the Bill in another place. I
648
think that there is an answer to that because the main delay to it has been in the other place. It was created by a minority of Members—by a minority of Conservative Members and by a minority of Labour Members—opposed to the treaty and using the archaic procedures of that House to create unreasonable delay. That was a great pity because in that period of 18 months other countries have ratified and we have not. What has gone on at the other end of the Corridor has caused confusion and boredom among the British public and, among European opinion, confusion combined perhaps with a suspicion that we were in some ways lacking in good faith towards the treaty.
I should like to appeal to all Members of this House (whatever view they take) that we do not continue with that nonsense. If there were an imitation in this House of the kind of tactics used in the other place, it would be bad for the reputation of this House. It would be futile in terms of opposing ratification, and it would be bad for the reputation of this country overseas.
Perhaps I may turn to one or two points about the dangers, as I see them, if by any chance we were to fail to ratify. It seems to me that there would be two main consequences. Because our decision not to ratify would mean that the whole treaty were null and void, there would then be a period—perhaps a long period —of agonized constitutional debate in the Community, with the other 11 countries seeking a way out. They would perhaps seek an arrangement for all 12 but more likely, I think, an arrangement for just the 11 with a procedure outside the Treaty of Rome. Perhaps there would even be a smaller group embarking upon schemes for a two-speed Europe. We do not know. However, there would be a turmoil of renegotiation and it would go on for a long time. It would be a terrible diversion away from the real problems facing Europe. It would take up the time and energies of the Government at a critical time when other matters should be higher on the agenda.
The second inevitable effect would be that Britain would be to some extent marginalised. There has been some argument about that during this debate, and not every one takes the same view. We would certainly have disqualified ourselves from taking any part in the new constitutional discussions. I think that the spin-off from that would be that we would no longer be listened to in the same way in all kinds of other policy discussions. Some noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Thatcher, have argued that because we would still be part of the Community, part of the Treaty of Rome and part of the single market, we could carry on much as before. I do not think that that is realistic. I think that in the real world political influence is lost if one steps out of line and does not keep up with one's colleagues in a community of this kind. There would then be serious consequences for a range of issues—short-term, mid-term and long-term issues—which are vital to this country.
Let me suggest just three examples. One has been mentioned a good deal in the debate. It is the problem of inward investment. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon had a great deal to say on that

649
subject, which was very much to the point. We are now in receipt of some 41 per cent. of Japanese investment in the EC and some 36 per cent. of United States investment in the EC. For what reasons? There are several, but the two strongest are that we are relatively competitive compared with other EC countries, and we benefit from that. The second is that the English language is a great help so far as concerns American investment. But those reasons would not, of themselves, be sufficient were it not for the fact that we are in the Community (in the single market) and are seen to be playing a part in the development of the Community.
If we once seem to be stepping aside, or if we once seem to be relegating ourselves from playing a central role in the Community, the perception of Britain as a country in which foreign investors should invest would change entirely. Because we are in the single market, it could be argued that that is not logical. But we are not here talking entirely about logic, we are talking about perception. Most people in industry and commerce would be deeply worried at the prospect of losing that investment if we were to take the wrong step now.
My second example relates to future prospects for the GATT. I do not need to say, because it has been said so often in the House, how vital it is for Britain, Europe and, indeed, for the whole world community, to make progress towards the next round of the GATT. Last year, Britain was instrumental in achieving between the Community and the United States the agreement on farm exports. That was difficult. It took a long time. There were elements in France and in the Community that seemed to resist that agreement. Our Prime Minister, our Minister of Agriculture and others, were crucially involved in tipping the balance in favour of an agreement. Yet as we debate the subject now, last year's agreement is again in doubt. The new French Prime Minister seems to be asking for it to be rewritten. The United States Administration is ambiguous about it. If it is coming to a critical head again in the near future, as is likely, then surely British influence should be at the centre of those talks, trying to preserve what was agreed last year and to help make progress towards all the other issues that still have to be settled in that context.
My third example is the enlargement of the Community. It has always been a British objective to make progress in that direction. It was a theme of our presidency. It was one of the major achievements at the Edinburgh Summit. It was a British achievement, along with that of other like-minded countries, to reach an agreement that negotiations should start rapidly with Austria, Sweden and Finland. That was of course on the assumption that Maastricht was about to be ratified. If Maastricht were not to be ratified, if the Community were to be thrown back into what I have described as a turmoil of renegotiation, then that progress towards enlargement would be halted, possibly for years; in other words, a failure to ratify would, in a sense, be opting for a smaller inward looking Community rather than a
650
Community growing into 17 or 20 members and becoming a European community in the fuller sense of the word.
There is one other dimension to which I wish to make a brief reference. We are discussing these matters, rightly, in terms of British interests, or the interests of the European Community of which we are a part. We should also think about the impact of Europe upon the wider world community. I welcome that part of the treaty which refers to co-operation on foreign policy. It is cautious in some ways. It has safeguards to protect national interests. It is rightly a separate pillar of the agreement, outside the sphere of the Commission.
But surely those points are self-evident. First, from the point of view of British interests, or indeed those of any other nation state, they are strengthened if you get the co-operation of your neighbours and you can work together. Secondly, 12 countries—perhaps more than 12 one day—have more impact on world affairs if they are acting together than the sum total of their separate efforts if they are not doing so. Thirdly, surely we can say—and this is not being chauvinistic in the European context—that Europe is a force for good in the world.
We are talking about 12 countries, whatever their faults or their failings. They are 12 democracies; 12 countries with a good record on civil rights compared with the average around the world; and 12 peace-loving countries with no aggressive intentions towards each other or towards other countries. In so far as their foreign policy can be co-ordinated and in so far as they can have a collective influence on the course of world affairs that is on the whole a healthy influence and will be better for mankind facing as it does so many critical situations.
I go further—and I hope that this is not chauvinistic—and say that within such a grouping the stronger the British influence the better. Perhaps I may give an example; it would be our intention to argue for the Atlantic dimension, the continuation of NATO as an important element and so forth. In other words, on that and on so many issues we would be a force for good within this European foreign policy. I believe that we should be pursuing two objectives: a stronger role for Britain in Europe and a stronger role for Europe in the world. Both of those objectives would be helped if we passed the Bill and saw the treaty ratified.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, several noble Lords have pointed out how national attitudes to Europe and to the Maastricht Treaty have changed as the economic recession has taken hold. It is an unfortunate but understandable fact of life that when human beings feel deprived they naturally become selfish and short-sighted. The issue at stake in this debate is only accidentally associated in time with a recession in the economic cycle.
The debate has a time horizon stretching well beyond the expected lifespan of the current recession. It is about how the people of Britain are best going to manage their affairs in the next century. It is about the

651
world in which our grandchildren are going to live and how they will sustain and enhance their quality of life within the framework of values which we are passing on to them.
We have heard a lot about how much better off we are now on our own, free of the constraints of the ERM. The argument that we can face the future on our own is superficially attractive. It conjures up Churchillian memories of standing alone with our backs to the wall as we did 50 years ago. But then, we should remember, we were supported by a huge empire spanning half the globe.
Since that time the evidence of our ability to go it alone, particularly in managing our economy, is unlikely to be very reassuring to our grandchildren. We have lurched from boom to slump. We have borrowed to gear up our standard of living and we have shrugged off the burden of debt by inflating the currency. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that at the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971 a British pound purchased 9 deutschmarks. It now buys 2.5 deutschmarks, representing an average rate of decline during 22 years of 5.1 per cent. per annum. A strategy of going it alone, which is implied if we fail to ratify the treaty, is not a strategy that I want for my grandchildren.
The balance of economic power in the world is changing fast. The next century will almost certainly belong to the Chinese. The rate of growth of the Chinese economy, the strong work ethic of its people and the abundant supply of capital from expatriate Chinese present a formidable combination. Today's debate is about how best to compete with China and with the other emerging markets, in particular those on the Pacific rim. Those countries will benefit for some time to come from wage levels far below our own. The western economies are high wage economies. They have to carry huge social costs. They can compete only by massively greater productivity.
Twenty years ago we made the historic decision to forget the past and to share our future with our neighbours in continental Europe. We realised that the age of empire was past and we rejected becoming the 51st state of the American Union. We rejected the view which Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie ascribes to his Sun readers that "the British have nothing in common with the Greeks just as the Portuguese have nothing in common with the Danes". We recognise not the differences but the common strengths which the people of Europe share: the Christian ethic; a common heritage in art, literature, architecture and music; and a common belief in democracy and freedom of the spirit. Above all, we recognise the special skills and traditions of the individual peoples of Europe. Surely a constructive partnership of such enormous and varied talent in a market of 350 million people is better able to hold its own than each of us going for it on our own.
Joining a club and sticking to the rules is never easy. Nothing much in this world which is of lasting value has been created without a great deal of hard work and pain. As many noble Lords have said, Maastricht is one step in the process and it is far from perfect. European endeavour has been and will no doubt
652
continue to be marked with successes and failures. There have been major successes. Let us not forget that it was the prosperity and growing cohesion of the Community which contributed so much to the fall of communism in the East. It is the success of the Community which explains the waiting list of countries wishing to join. Ironically, indeed, it was the success which gave rise to the sudden opportunity of reuniting Germany that has since presented the Community with its recent crisis, coming as it did alongside a world recession.
The ERM broke down last year because it contained no mechanism for upward revaluation of the anchor currency—the deutschmark. The unexpected massive cost of absorbing East Germany was just the kind of external shock which the safety valves in the system should have been able to accommodate. If you screw down the safety vales, you must expect an explosion. It was not the bankers who screwed down the safety vales; it was the finance Ministers and heads of government. The ERM was always intended as a transitional phase. In fact, it was never going to be easy to manage both sterling and the deutschmark —two of the world's major trading currencies—within the exchange rate mechanism.
That fact was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in December 1978 when he declined to participate in the exchange rate mechanism from its beginning. That was a decision which, according to Hansard, was hailed from the Opposition Benches by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as "A sad day for Europe". The lady has turned quite a lot since then.
The fear at the time was the usual one; namely, that sterling would not be able to sustain its exchange rate against the mark. In the event, sterling became a petro-currency and climbed from 3.70 deutschmarks in December 1978 to over 5.00 deutschmarks in January 1981 and would have burst out of the top of the ERM, not the bottom. However, it was back to 3.70 deutschmarks two years later.
Now that we are once again outside the ERM basking in our new-found freedom, we should reflect on the fact that the rest of the world sees Britain as once again having taken the soft option. The boom-bust roller coaster has once again been let loose and the events of the 1980s and those of earlier decades look like repeating themselves.
As I have said, the Maastricht Treaty looks through and beyond the problems of today. It presupposes the United Kingdom's commitment to Europe and the existence of the single market. It proposes a step-by-step approach to the next logical stage of economic integration within the Community —economic and monetary union and a single currency. It is on that aspect of the treaty that I wish to focus a few comments.
The proposition that you can have a successful single market without a single currency is, I believe, flawed. In that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. The combination of 11 independent monetary policies, 11 separate balances of payments and the free movement of capital is a recipe for exchange rate instability.

653
A single market with free capital movement but without a single currency can only degenerate into competitive devaluation and protectionism unless there is very strict co-ordination of monetary policy. And if there is to be very strict co-ordination of monetary policy, why not have a single currency and reap the full advantages?
A single currency permits a huge expansion of opportunity for rational long term investment decisions, maximising the economies of scale and competitive advantage. More importantly, it brings together all the domestic savings of the Community's 340 million people into a vast single capital market, which will be in London. That market is vital if we are to finance the high technology industries on which our future depends. London will benefit in other ways. Without a single currency there can be no single market in banking and financial services, an industry in which we excel. National Westminster and other British banks cannot compete with BNP in lending French francs in France or with the Deutschebank in Germany because it does not have a domestic deposit base in French francs or in deutschmarks. With a single currency our banks could compete on equal terms throughout the Community. Without a single currency pension funds will still regard investments in other Community countries as foreign investments with attendant exchange risks.
A single currency would bring other benefits to the United Kingdom. The British economy, with about 40
654
per cent. of GNP in foreign trade, is highly exposed to the pressures of external events. That figure drops to approximately 15 per cent. for the Community as a whole, which is closer to the figure of 12 per cent. for the United States and 10 per cent. for Japan. Marrying the deutschmark and sterling has the potential to create an international reserve currency of at least equal importance to the US dollar. That would bring benefits of seigneurage and commodity pricing that were once enjoyed within the Sterling area.
The Government have allowed the anti-Maastricht lobby to do all the talking. They have claimed that they want to be at the heart of Europe, but they have not explained to the people why. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, stated, the Government have been grudging and defensive all along. The Maastricht debate is about competition and survival in the next century. It is not about current twists in the economic cycle, however painful they may be.
I am not personally in favour of a referendum at this very late stage in the process, but if there is to be a referendum I have no doubt that the British people, when confronted with the real arguments on both sides, will not be so foolish as to turn their backs on Europe.
The time has come for us to stop behaving, as our Australian cousins would say, like whingeing Poms. We should put the treaty to bed, roll up our sleeves, get stuck in and make it work in the best interests of our people and of the whole Community.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, for some considerable time, since the word "Maastricht" entered the day-to-day currency of the English language, I have felt a personal conviction which has led to my being diametrically opposed to anything to do with the conception.
Perhaps I am an incurable romantic. I see my country standing alone for the best part of a thousand years. It has never been invaded. We have repelled all comers. We have built up trade worldwide. We built up an empire which evolved into a Commonwealth. We were at times entirely on our own except for the great help and assistance of the New World. Accordingly, having talked to one or two friends over the past two or three weeks, I have felt that perhaps we have gone rather too far down the road towards a closer liaison with our friends in Europe. On the other hand, however much one dislikes the situation, I felt it would be foolish not to continue in the best possible way to give the embryo a chance of survival. I hope that noble Lords will not take that to mean that I think it will survive, but, if we are to go down that route, we should give it the best chance of survival.
However, this afternoon—or more correctly this evening—my noble friend Lord Beloff really put a spoke into the wheel, as he made me change my mind entirely and I found myself 100 per cent. in agreement with him, which brings me almost back to square one. I shall try not to get waylaid on that point, though.
It worries me greatly that the route that has been planned and devised for our future by not only our own leaders but also by influential people in Europe is effecting a major constitutional change in our country. My noble friend Lady Thatcher has said it is nothing short of a disgrace that the people of this country have not had the benefit of expressing their view. That is an important matter.
My noble friend Lord Stockton has said he is against a referendum because that could lead to further referendums. He asked me whether that was what I wanted and, facetiously, I replied that it was. I remember that, when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, was prime minister in 1975, a referendum took place on whether we should withdraw from the treaty we had signed on the Common Market. I remember exactly where I was sitting in this House at that time. I sat just behind where the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is sitting now. I said then that I was against referendums as politicians had been elected to run the country and if the electorate did not like what they were doing it could throw them out at the next election. My remarks of that time are in Hansard, although I have not looked them up.
I said in 1975 that, if we chose to hold a referendum on that subject, we would open the floodgates for referendums in the future, particularly on anything connected with the subject we are discussing but perhaps as regards other matters too. I also said that I felt the people of this country would have some difficulty in understanding the matter. I thought that was a perfectly reasonable remark. However, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who was sitting on the government Front Bench took great exception to it.
656
He felt I had been arrogant to suggest that the people of this country did not understand what was good for them. I did not mean that at all. On several occasions this afternoon speakers have said that Maastricht is a complicated matter and it may not be desirable to hold a referendum as the people of the country would have considerable difficulty in understanding the subject matter. If that is so, the remedy is relatively simple. A public relations exercise should have been conducted by our leaders on the Front Bench in this House and in another place to explain what this matter is all about and to present it in the most favourable light.
One person has asked me recently whether the Maastricht Treaty is a devious Jesuit plot finally to put the Pope on the throne of Europe. That shows the extent of some people's knowledge of this subject. I believe my noble and right honourable friends in government have been lax, to say the least, as regards explaining what this matter is all about in a way that would give the Government support and would further the better performance and development of the treaty.
We are transferring a considerable amount of power from a democracy, or from several democracies, to a bureaucracy which is totally unaccountable and is unelected. Did we not lose the American colonies on the basis of the cry, "no taxation without representation"? Exactly the same might happen in this case if that bureaucracy is not elected and is not accountable and if it continues to issue edicts. The people of this country might just not accept that. That is where the whole programme could fail. That would be very sad.
Yes, I do imply federalism. I do not particularly like it, but if we ratify the treaty then federalism has to follow if it is to work. If we do not like that, then we do not ratify, but I regret to say that I cannot see the treaty working without some form of federalism.
What can we do about that? People who think as I do are accused of trying to put a spanner in the Government's wheel by requesting a referendum which would appear only to delay ratification of the treaty and therefore snarl up the whole programme and, furthermore, undermine our beleaguered Prime Minister's authority yet more. I should like to put the matter in a different perspective. If that were the case I should not be standing here now saying what I have said because I do not believe that that would be the result. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister may well have made many mistakes. We are none of us infallible; we all make mistakes. I have probably made some in what I have said. However, one tries to act with conviction. I am certain that my right honourable friend tries to act with conviction. He is the best Prime Minister we have. The late Hilaire Belloc said:
"Always keep a hold of nurse,
For fear of finding something worse".
It is perhaps a pity that that was not borne in mind in 1990, but that is another story.
I suggest that we throw a lifeline to the Government in order that the treaty can be ratified and made to work in the best possible way. The lifeline is this. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said that he believed that,

657
if there were a referendum, the majority of the people of this country would give their support to the Maastricht Treaty. I have no idea whether he is right, but, if he is and there were overwhelming support, how much more authority this country would have in Europe than if we crept in by the back door feeling that the majority of the population was against the treaty. That is what I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench. If they were to look at the matter in that way, and if it were to work, then we should speak with conviction and with the support of the people of this country. Without that support I do not believe that our standing in Europe will be as great as the Government would like it to be and as great as I should like it to be.
That is why I hope very much that, before we reach the Committee stage, the points which have been made about this particular matter will be given more serious consideration and taken on board with more ease than I fear is likely to be the case.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I suspect that after more than seven and a half hours of debate brevity would be welcome. I shall therefore try to be brief.
I applauded the considerable success of our Prime Minister in securing at Maastricht the important United Kingdom objectives which had been properly debated and agreed by Parliament before he went. I voted enthusiastically in another place to endorse the result of those negotiations and was delighted later by the Prime Minister's great skill in steering the Edinburgh summit to constructive conclusions. This Bill, which is essential for the ratification of the treaty, has my wholehearted support, as indeed does my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who has been subject to quite unreasonable and vindictive personal abuse in recent weeks, shamefully but powerfully promoted by one or two distinguished Members of this House, I regret to say.
I believe that ratification of the treaty has already been too long delayed, and by what a curious combination of opposites. Principled and long-term opponents of European integration, joined by more recent converts to their cause and coupled with strange bedfellows from Left and Right across party lines, tried desperately by every possible means to block this Bill's passage through the other place. My noble friend Lord Beloff spoke of conspiracies in a rather imaginative fashion. The conspirators were at the other end of this building in the corridors doing their damnedest to block progress on the Bill.
The Maastricht Treaty builds upon earlier agreements enshrined in the Single European Act which I well recall being driven through the other place under a guillotine imposed by a three-line Whip. What a contrast, my Lords. There have been more than 200 hours of detailed debate on the Maastricht legislation compared with some 50 hours on the arguably more significant and important Single European Act.
And how very rum it is that some of those responsible for the curtailment of parliamentary
658
debate on the Single European Act should now be urging a referendum on Maastricht —a U-turn of quite staggering proportions. What bad luck for my noble friend Lady Thatcher that the memoirs of her speech writer, Sir Ronald Miller, should have focused renewed attention on that notable phrase, "the lady's not for turning".
As a new boy in your Lordships' House I am full of admiration for the quality of your Lordships' debates. What splendid speeches we have had today. Perhaps I may refer to the speeches of my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Thorneycroft. They were of a marvellous standard and were followed by many others. I am full of admiration for the quality of debates in this Chamber. I recognise our important role as a revising Chamber. However, I find it very curious that some of your Lordships should be attempting to instruct our elected Chamber about democratic practice by seeking to overturn the clear rejection, by a substantial majority, of the referendum amendment in another place. As one might expect, my noble friend Lord Blake constructed as strong a case as possible. But he gave it all away when he accepted that the other place would maintain—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I realise that what I say may be disagreeable to the noble Lord, but I seek to be brief and I would be sorry if the noble Lord sought to make me continue at greater length. I shall give way to him in a moment.
My noble friend Lord Blake accepted that the other place would maintain its opposition. Therefore the main purpose of seeking a referendum agreement would be—perhaps I may use the phrase—to go to sea in order to be sick because in my judgment there would be no possibility of the other place accepting such an amendment. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. I realise that he has not been a Member of this Chamber long. However, he must surely appreciate that part of our revising procedure is to make amendments to Bills and to send them back to the House of Commons for further reconsideration. That applies just as much to an amendment for a referendum as to any other amendments we may make. I hope that he will revise his opinion.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I hope that I have been a Member of this Chamber long enough not to need instruction from the noble Lord on a matter of this kind. I do not believe that it is a procedural matter. The referendum amendment was rejected in another place by an overwhelming majority. If it had been a narrow vote there might be some argument for saying, "Let us think again". That has occurred in the past. Howe ver, the majority was overwhelming. This House is a revising Chamber. I referred to the attempt to instruct an elected Chamber about its responsibilities to the electorate. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is a principled opponent of the European ideal. I cannot believe that he would make progress by

659
seeking to obtain through the referendum amendment that which ordinary parliamentary debate failed to obtain.
Of course, the long tedious arguments and discussions about this Bill in another place have not been a dead loss; far from it. What one might describe as the anti-centrist case has been well made and emphasised. For example, positive points about subsidiarity and about much needed closer co-operation on foreign and security issues have been made with great force and conviction by Ministers —notably by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his then Minister of State, who carried so much of the burden in the parliamentary debates in another place. The case for enlargement, for accepting EFTA countries into full Community membership and for building upon the association agreements with Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary is overwhelming.
Despite all the long drawn out arguments about the ERM and a single currency, I remain absolutely convinced that future economic co-operation within the Community will be much more determined by events, by industrial and commercial pressures, than by political declarations.
Failure to ratify this treaty would grievously damage our national interests, both economic and political. British influence overseas would undoubtedly be curtailed, economic confidence would tumble, present hard-won achievements and opportunities within the Community would be cast aside. It is altogether a growing dismal prospect which certainly does not please.
Let me end by affirming my deep commitment and long-time support for European unity. I am not a federalist and I have consistently opposed the federal concept since I first became involved with the European Movement and the European Youth Campaign in the early 1950s. As a pragmatic realist —one of my noble friend Lord Carrington's, I hope —I am totally convinced that Britain has much to contribute to and much to gain from the increasing unity of our continent. But to achieve that we must be at the heart of Europe, and that is why the Bill has my full support.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, my father was for some time on the British National Export Council and I think that I inherited his enthusiasm for European trade while still a schoolboy. So enthused was I that I went to live and work in Belgium, where, sadly, my enthusiasm was greatly dampened. I used to pass the motorway sign for Maastricht on a regular basis, little realising that the name Maastricht would dominate the early part of the last decade of this century. I am sure that I am not alone among your Lordships when I declare that I have never been to Maastricht and also not alone in saying that I find the treaty difficult to understand. In fact, if we are all totally honest, how many of us have met anyone, inside or outside the Palace of Westminster, who fully understands the treaty?
660
Having changed career from being a secondary producer to a primary producer, my enthusiasm was sadly still further dampened. In 1986 I was "conned" —and I use that word with feeling—into representing Scotland on the European Landowning Organisation. I was told that there would be only two meetings a year and that I would be inundated with invitations to châteaux in France, Schlosser in Germany and weekends on the Riviera. In my naivety I accepted and in my first year there were no less than 17 meetings and, needless to say, not one single social invitation.
I did, however, have the chance, often in the same day, to sit next to Mr. Andriessen and later on meet attractive dolly birds fresh out of university who doodled around with pencils and then came up with wondrous ideas, or at least so they thought, like prohibiting the shooting of pigeons and having a closed season for culling crows.
Another example of idiotic Brussels bureaucracy is the slaughter-house directive which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. In 1992, 200 of our 780 slaughter-houses closed, and it is predicted that by the end of the century we shall have only 100 left in this country. No other member state has had a 25 per cent. annual closure rate and we must ask why. I am fairly certain that it is because other countries simply are not obeying the rules.
This is one of the main points that I wish to make. While I believe we must be in Europe, we must be there at the very heart, as other noble Lords have said, to prohibit—and I mean prohibit—such idiotic directives becoming law. I remember well a cartoon in a national magazine referring to the game meat directive. It depicted a white-coated vet standing beside a busy grouse butt trying hard to resuscitate a pile of birds and despatching them hobbling off on mini-crutches into the unknown.
Being a market of 340 million people we must ensure that the Brussels' bureaucracy is of the highest level of competence and that they are not just there for "les pommes frites avec la mayonnaise" or waiting for dinner at the world-famous restaurant Villa Lorraine, while waiting to retire at 50 with annual pensions surpassing what some people within the Community might earn in their entire working life.
I must now turn to the dreaded CAP, to which many of your Lordships have referred. I have often said in this House that future generations will find it hard to believe that European Community governments allowed such a situation to arise, let alone for it to continue for so long. We cannot allow corrupt practices to go on stealing £6 billion annually from the CAP budget.
In the late 1970s we were told more food was required—drain the wetlands and pull out the fences. With the financial incentives on offer, farmers, especially those in the LFAs, would have been mad not to comply. But, and it is a large but, many farmers —and I hasten to add that I must include myself—borrowed to meet the shortfall. All of a sudden we are told: stop, set it all aside and here is an IACS form and a large cheque will follow. To give an incentive to

661
grow more, and a few years on an incentive to grow less, must be financial madness, especially with 759 million people starving in the world today.
We in this country are on the whole good at obeying the rules. But look at Spain, where only 65 per cent. of the IACS forms have been returned on time. There are not even figures available for Greece, Portugal and Ireland.
We must not also lose sight of the fact that even within the United Kingdom we do not have the same laws, regulations and culture. Scotland, for example, has a very different set of laws from England and Wales, although it has been in the Union for very nearly 300 years. As such I have always found it difficult to understand how, if the United Kingdom has different laws affecting different countries within its Union, we can honestly expect bureaucrats in Brussels to dream up directives that must apply to the Greek isles and equally to the Outer Hebrides. It cannot work, and that is why it is so vital that we are in there to ensure that what is decided is representative for the member countries concerned.
It is not, and I believe it must not be, the function of Brussels to trample over the national traditions and to try to modify sensible working practices within member states. It is totally unnatural and illogical to suggest otherwise.
I believe in a common market if it really is common. As long as there is such a beast, I believe that we must be at its very heart. To disband it altogether has its merits, but that is not what we are discussing tonight. Membership of the European Community is about peace, stability, jobs and prosperity. If we are to believe that, as I believe we should, it would be political, economic and social suicide not to ratify this treaty.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, after more than 200 hours of exhaustive discussion in another place, the powerful contributions in today's debate, with a detailed examination to follow, and the comprehensive media coverage of the Maastricht Treaty, your Lordships will rightly expect me to be reasonably brief at this late hour. I shall cut out the jokes.
An experienced negotiator knows that there is no perfect deal because negotiation by definition is a two-way affair: one of give and take. Within that context and the inevitable financial constraints on EC or any other public spending proposals, the Government have secured a fair and reasonable arrangement for the country and I am sure that they will continue to keep in mind business concerns regarding added overhead costs in a highly competitive world market.
It may be that a further referendum following the one approving our accession to the EC in 1975 might have been considered originally, although I do not recall such a suggestion being raised in the case of the single market treaty, which in effect ended individual state veto. I shall listen to or read the arguments with care but we should bear in mind the very substantial vote of rejection on this matter in the other place,
662
which had the support of all three major parties. There is also the fact that our European partners have already ratified the treaty, with the Government securing broad recognition of the principle of subsidiarity.
It is clear that public opinion in this country does not want European federalism. So significant opt-outs have been negotiated to allay many of the understandable concerns expressed about the constitutional implications of the treaty. Maastricht represents a further stage in bringing the countries of Europe closer together, which in principle I support. But before any possible benefit can be derived, there is still the need to ensure that the Treaty of Rome and the single market treaty are working as intended.
We all want free trade on a reciprocal basis but while this country plays to the rules there are still restrictive trade practices in Europe, notably in the CAP but also in smaller matters. To take one example, as a tourist, why is it almost impossible to buy British mineral water on the continent whereas in this country a wide range of similar products is freely available? I do not believe that that is due to bad salesmanship on the part of the trade. We all know of the urgent need to eliminate the elements of waste, inefficiency and over-centralisation that exist in the EC and give it a bad name. That is not good enough for our country, which contributes a net £25 billion a year to the EC budget. We need far more accountability.
I know that my noble friend Lady Thatcher achieved a considerable reduction in our contribution, but I am not clear as to the basis on which the UK —a deficit country in EC trade—makes any payment at all. Of course the EC has many problems, which have been exacerbated by world recession, but in time they are soluble and more likely to be solved if we all work together.
It is true that we lack a common language—a regrettable drawback, but there is always English—and at present a uniform approach to defence and foreign policy. But within the framework of NATO and the WEU—two supranational organisations as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—the Government have agreed with their partners on a gradual approach to those issues. Realistically that will require time to resolve, a point which was made in the admirable speeches of my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Cockfield. Most importantly, we have retained the right to deal with such legal issues as cross-border crime and security.
We have learnt from the tragic experience of Yugoslavia and the break-up of the USSR and Czechoslovakia that political union, if it is to survive, must evolve and cannot be imposed. But above all, we should recall that the sacrifice made in world wars by two generations for the cause of freedom and justice has finally resulted in the establishment of an externally peaceful and more prosperous Western Europe—surely a fitting memorial to the millions who gave life or limb for that ultimate purpose.
As a leading partner we must retain the vision of bringing harmony to a Community that has already been created. We have yet to develop the democratic

663
agencies needed to control the bureaucracy of Brussels and beyond. We also need to extend further the benefits of free trade in goods and services by successfully concluding the interminable Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations. My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft spoke so well on that and other matters, as did my noble friend Lord Parkinson in his excellent maiden speech.
Eventually a common currency eliminating transaction costs and an overall economic approach to such key issues as employment, competitiveness, investment and training may emerge—I hope that they will. But all that depends upon greater convergence as the ERM experience has shown. To carry public opinion, never was the truism, "Patience is a virtue", more relevant. We want to see, in the fullness of time, a Europe of free and independent states working together in the pursuit of peace and prosperity, extending a warm welcome to its EFTA partners and eastern European neighbours so recently liberated from the darkness of tyranny. We must also take into account the urgent needs of the less prosperous parts of the world and continue to remain a staunch friend of our great ally, the United States of America.
We will not achieve our objectives by being outside the EC mainstream, for British diplomatic skills can only be effective if we are right at the centre of policy making—a point referred to by my noble friend Lord Howe in his penetrating address. To quote the Prime Minister,
"Britain requires the appropriate authority in Europe to shape the future of the EC, and not be shaped by the future of the EC".
Whatever the frustrations, we should maintain and develop our historic links with Europe, whose freedom has been our concern for hundreds of years.
As we approach the 21st century we should combine our love and respect for the time-honoured traditions and institutions that form our heritage with a leading role in the progress of a democratic and outward-looking Europe. Our partners retain their independence; they feel no loss of sovereignty and neither should we. Of course there are some weaknesses and lack of flexibility in the present structure of the EC. But with good will all round, that can be corrected. The really important factor is that there is within sight the ultimate goal of a prosperous Europe, at peace with itself and with its neighbours.
11.3 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Denham, in a verse he wrote, once described me as a "cross-Tory Peer". Notwithstanding that, it is never pleasant to speak against one's party line, which I feel I have to this evening. However, I do not believe that I will deserve to be hated for all time, and to anyone who sings the refrain, "Sit down, sit down, you're rocking the boat", I must reply that perhaps someone should have ensured that not too many members of the crew were left behind before we left port.
Twenty-one years ago I spoke and voted in this House against our accession to the Treaty of Rome; not against the concept of the common market, but out of fears for the future. Those fears are now
664
realised. I was tempted, perhaps like my noble friend Lord Selsdon, simply to read out a speech I made then. But of course I shall not, although the Third Reading speech I made on this very spot on 20th September 1972 is as applicable to this evening's debate as I thought it was to that occasion.
My concern was that we were committing ourselves to sign up for treaties then unwritten. This treaty of Union is just such a one. Listening to my noble friend the Leader of the House this afternoon, I wondered whether he had missed the news report that only yesterday Chancellor Kohl was urging haste towards a federal Europe. That is the future others plan for us. Brussels bureaucrats and politicians have a clear blueprint for the days when the central institutions of the Community will play puppet masters to national parliaments, as evinced by the quotation from M. Delors that my noble friend Lady Thatcher regaled us with this afternoon.
At negotiation time much was made of deletion of the word "federal". But the reality of intent remained. The concept of the authors is intact. In today's debate the pudding of earlier treaties has been stirred and stirred and, according to the speakers' views, plums have been pulled out in attempts to prove that our course was already irrevocably set for Union before this treaty came along. I do not agree. Declarations of intent and preambles are not law. No, my Lords, for me this treaty is quite clearly a bridge too far. It spans the gap twixt close association and Union.
Surely the twin pillars of our democracy are the power of another place alone to raise taxes and the balance we strive to maintain between legislature and executive. Europe-wide control of fiscal policy, with a central bank and a single currency, must impinge on our exclusive right to self-taxation. There goes the first pillar. Unelected officials in Brussels and a European Parliament in which we are a minority voice among many whose politics may from time to time be distasteful will surely destroy the second. I am not cheered by the doctrine of subsidiarity which I fear will certainly be circumscribed by central edict.
A single common market is a very sensible idea. Trade without restriction should be a universal idea. My noble friend Lord Parkinson, in his excellent maiden speech, expanded on and enlarged that point. Have we in the EC achieved our common market? I think not. And if we have not, and if it has not delivered, why not? It is impossible to judge or even to pretend to be able to judge what might have ensued had we pursued an alternative. Global recession bedevils any analysis. But apart from the ERM fiasco, what has been the experience?
My noble friend Lord Tonypandy told us this afternoon that we have paid in £95 billion since we joined. In 1972 average unemployment in this country stood at 844,000 and we had a £203 million balance of trade surplus. In the 1980s there was expansion and today there is slump. We might ask why the market has not cushioned us against the worst peaks and troughs. I suggest that that may be because we have failed to achieve our initial aims to get the market properly and equably organised on a level playing field. Time and time again we have said that we must

665
get the common agricultural policy sorted out. We announce initiatives and claim successes and yet it still lingers on to the point where it has nearly ruined the GATT round talks.
Only last week a French spokesman said that his farmers wanted another 50 per cent. added to the set aside price per tonne and that it would be better to give in than to have them riot in the streets. What an attitude! There are still other cases of delay and failure to achieve convergence of law and practice. There is corruption to tackle, the failure to implement directives and to enforce regulations, which have already been referred to. For goodness sake, surely getting the market sorted out and running smoothly should have been a prerequisite even for those who advocate political and social union.
To my noble friend Lord Elton I say that you do not have to marry a business partner, but if so inclined, make sure of the partnership first. Perhaps in seeking a surer way of avoiding the terrible possibilities on which he dwelt, one might look to the ongoing interdependence of the armed forces of Europe which has been a feature of our lives since 1945 and in which we are actively involved now.
I now turn to the referendum question. We have had a Scottish and a Welsh devolution referendum and a reverse one on the Common Market. Surely the precedent is set for matters of constitutional change. I disagree that there was a mandate in a meaningful sense. My noble friend Lady Thatcher pointed out that consensus meant that no one had the chance to vote for it. I am sure she will accept that there was a "No" vote represented by the die-hard marketeers returned to another place.
I do not find that the electorate knows a great deal about this treaty other than the name Maastricht. I have consistently refused to use that word so far in this speech and have stuck to its title, a "Treaty on European Union", a title which should be aired widely. The media, which now largely makes election-time running, chose to push more immediate and personal issues. I suggest that no one has put all the cards on the table face up. The electorate deserves better. It will be almost arrogant to deny them.
I was pleased that my countryman, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, agreed, but I got a little worried when he seemed to be suggesting that we might have one on the Schleswig-Holstein question. We are not the only country where there are strong and popular reservations about this treaty. Rather than fearing what the rest would do without us, we should reflect perhaps that they need us. Might we not hope that, should the United Kingdom turn the treaty down now, it might lead, as I think that my noble friend Lord Prentice was suggesting, to some rethinking and perhaps to a compromise that we all can endorse?
Finally, I return to my main theme. This treaty is for me a bridge too far. When in the 1970s I argued on sovereignty, I was told not to be sentimental. I was told that we were only pooling or sharing our sovereignty. It was not sentiment; it was reason. One can use sovereignty in an alliance to pursue a common goal or exert its authority to collaborate or to support
666
a cause. We should do so. But the concept of pooling or sharing sovereignty is ridiculous. James Graham, the first Marquis of Montrose, writing to his King said of such a concept:
"In speech it is incongruous and to attempt it in act is pernicious".
Sovereignty surely must stand alone or it is not sovereignty. Ours is embodied in the strong parliamentary democracy that we have cherished these hundreds of years. I challenge the right of Parliament to surrender it. The 20th century may certainly place constraints upon us, but in the final analysis it still rests with the people of the United Kingdom and their Parliament to act as they and they alone see fit. The freedom to do so stands at the pinnacle of our traditions. We must keep it there for our children's and our children's children's sakes. With this treaty which we are asked to ratify, that freedom would be gone beyond recall and they will rue the day. I pray that we may yet see reason prevail.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, anyone who lived through the 1930s and the Second World War can understand the case for a United States of Europe. The case can be made convincingly and it is certainly an honourable cause as I, for one, always recognised. I have never been impressed by some of the arguments against. Some object because of a loss of sovereignty. The view that nation states are any longer sovereign in the old-fashioned meaning of that word is, of course, a nonsense.
There are those who object to becoming citizens of Europe. I am both Welsh and British and to add one more identity causes me no problem at all. Indeed, as one who was born in a multi-cultural city, where I live and where more than a dozen languages are spoken every day, perhaps we offer an example to many others.
It is said of the Welsh that we will never cast our bread upon the waters unless the tide is coming in -and it is that invaluable tradition that has led me to question not the motives of those who have been pursuing the European ideal, but the methods. Ever since the Treaty of Rome, we have been engaged in a policy of European federalism by stealth, even by subterfuge. On signing the Treaty of Rome, we were given the impression that we had joined a common market, a kind of super free trade area. There was no mention made then of monetary union or of a single currency managed by an independent bank, although Sir Edward Heath now tells us that a single currency and a single economic policy were implicit all along. I wish that he had told us that at the time.
We had a referendum following a renegotiation of the terms of the Treaty of Rome. In the Government's document urging us to vote "Yes", it was stated:
"There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed".
I wonder how many were persuaded to vote "Yes" in the referendum because of such assurances.

667
In 1978 we had direct elections to the European Parliament. Do we really believe that men and women elected by popular franchise are content for ever to sit in Europe merely twiddling their thumbs? They are restless now, and they have been restless for some time. It is understandable that they should be. We have had the Single European Act. We have been in and out of the exchange rate mechanism. We now have Maastricht which is clearly a major step towards a federal Europe.
All those steps do not add up to fighting a noble cause. It is more like playing the wheel of fortune: give the wheel enough spins and one day the jackpot may appear. The Maastricht Treaty is the jackpot that the European idealists have been seeking ever since we joined the Treaty of Rome. Men and women have wrecked they political careers in the cause of European union. Some have (as they put it) tried to break the mould of British politics. They have been (and some still are) ready to sacrifice their own parties in support of or in opposition to European union. I believe that the British people are sick and tired of it. They feel helpless as they watch our institutions and our economy in almost complete disarray.
We are leaderless and rudderless. As one of our national newspapers put it last weekend:
"Europe is not one issue among many here. It is the mother and father of a fatal malady".
There is only one way in which that dreadful situation can be resolved and that is by taking the question of European union—which is what the Maastricht Treaty is about—to the British people. They were not given the opportunity at the last general election. The three major parties were silent on the subject of the Maastricht Treaty. I believe that it was only when the Danes blew the gaff in their first referendum that the British public began to realise the importance of the Maastricht Treaty. I repeat that the people of Britain should be given the opportunity to express a view and that can be done only through a referendum.
11.23 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, in view of the quality and breadth of the speeches that have been made tonight, all that remains for me to do is to nail my colours firmly to the Maastricht mast, and briefly to give my reasons for so doing. I find one of the most compelling reasons that of inevitability. Let me explain what I mean by that.
When I was a young man in the late 1940s and early 1950s, I visited, as I imagine many of your Lordships did, the continent of Europe—France, Italy and Spain. When I crossed into those countries I was aware of a profound difference of culture, way of doing things, and, above all, of language. I was then, as sadly I still remain, a very poor linguist. At the level at which I was travelling none of the locals was prepared to talk to me in English, even if they knew a few words of the language.
That has profoundly changed during the past four decades. When I now cross to Calais it is not quite the same as motoring to Edinburgh or to Cardiff but the difference is far from profound. To go to France, to
668
journey from Calais to Paris, to call at the occasional cafe and to fill up with petrol is almost the same as continuing one's journey in England.
That change has taken place irresistibly since the Second World War. Of course, I must make allowances for the fact that I am older and a more experienced traveller and that world-wide communications have increased incredibly in quality and speed. However, having made those allowances I still believe that the unification of Europe has been going on steadily for the past four decades.
When I look at it in that light I see the various treaties that we have signed and to which we have committed ourselves, starting with the Coal and Steel Treaty to the last in the sequence, which is Maastricht. I see them simply as steps along the road—as milestones, if you will. Some of those treaties were better for Britain, some were ahead of the wishes of the voters of a particular country and some were administratively badly set out. They all have faults but, in my view, the march forward is irresistible. Maastricht, of course, is far from being the last treaty to which we shall be asked to subscribe.
It is possible to seek to erect barricades against this process. If one does that they will not be stormed by revolutionaries; they will simply be swept over in the course of time by the tide of history. We are now on a road from which there is no turning back. We can go forward in the van or we can go forward in the rear —but go forward we surely will.
I have little sympathy with those—and there have been some in the debate—who clearly thought that when we embarked down this road we were going to join a single market and no more; that we were joining some form of commercial union and at that point we should stop. My noble friend Lord Cockfield quoted from the various treaties which set out clearly the intention to proceed towards some form of political union. One need only have listened to the various leaders of Europe to know that that has been their intention from at least 1950. There has been no deception of the British electorate or the British Parliament. That has been the road down which they have headed, and if we did not realise that we were blind.
It is difficult to think of Maastricht and the treaty without making at least some reference to monetary union. I do so with a certain nervousness because I am no economist. When I look at the commercial and financial status of our country and what has happened to it during the past 40 years I cannot view this history with any great pride. In about 1950 we were the third or fourth most powerful and rich country in the world. It would be fair to say that now we are nearing the bottom of the first division.
It seems to me that the problem has been that our productivity or competitiveness—which I take to be almost the same—have rarely matched those of our rivals, except at short intervals. A number of those occurred in the 1980s. When faced with an inevitable financial crisis of one kind or another, our remedy has been to devalue. That always provides short-term relief, but in the longer term it merely accelerates our

669
slide down the competitive slope or brings down our level compared with our competitors in the western world.
That is not to say that the standards of living in this country have not improved appreciably since 1950, because they have, but they have not risen to the same level as that of our competitors. That tendency to be uncompetitive most of the time and to solve that problem by devaluation has been one of the roots of that decline.
It struck me at the time at which we joined the monetary system and fixed our exchange rate to the deutschmark that that was a gallant effort to provide the kind of national discipline which would ensure that we become competitive with the rest of the western world. We know now, some of us with the wisdom of hindsight, that we entered at the wrong level. That was a fatal flaw and, indeed, we have had to leave the ERM. Our currency has again been devalued not by the Government this time but by the markets. I hope that it will be possible to try again to re-enter the monetary system at a more competitive rate. I believe that that, with several caveats, is the policy of Her Majesty's Government today.
As regards a referendum I am, as are many of your Lordships, opposed to referenda in general for reasons which have been well aired both in this House and outside it. But if those proponents of a referendum could set out clearly the kind of parameters which they have in mind for holding referenda in the future, I should at least listen sympathetically. It is not enough to say that the matter is of great importance to the nation or that it is a profound constitutional issue. As was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House, to the man in the street an issue like Maastricht is secondary to, for example, the state of the National Health Service, the education system or anything affecting his motor car. He would not put Maastricht at the head of a list of issues on which he would wish to vote were he offered a choice. Therefore, parameters must be set.
I object profoundly to putting the power to call a referendum into the hands of the Prime Minister or the government of the day, more or less at their whim, when they believe that there may be some political advantage to be obtained from it. I believe that that is a quite unacceptable extension of parliamentary democracy.
For those reasons I support totally the Maastricht Treaty and I wish the Bill before your Lordships which incorporates it a fair wind during its later stages.
11.34 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, I could not bring myself to miss this opportunity of speaking on such an important matter which is rarely debated in Parliament despite the fact that I am the 45th speaker and so many excellent speeches have been made already. It is now dark outside and I can and shall be brief.
I have no interest to declare in the narrow sense, but I should touch on the background of experience
670
against which I speak because, although I am fortunate to have much wider interests than these, 39 years as an active merchant banker and my current involvement in the oil business have surely influenced my thinking. Both businesses, though hugely different in scale, are global in scope, while at the same time heavily interested both in Britain domestically and Britain in Europe.
The Maastricht Treaty happens to be the focus of our discussion today, but it is only part of a continuum in terms of the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Community. These, heaven knows, are troubled times, when all over the world some of the apparent stability and the advances of the past few decades are crumbling and perhaps lost.
As I contemplate the changes which membership of the EC brings, I am apprehensive. Changes with European neighbours, changes in sovereignty and problems deriving from the assimilation of widely differing economies are but a few examples. Those changes are daunting and if I do not tremble like some, I certainly worry, and most people that I know are like me.
However, any apprehension that I may feel about the detailed implications of our membership of the European Community and of the Treaty of Maastricht in particular is nothing compared to my worry about not being truly within the Community process. That is completely unthinkable. All too many of those whom I have heard using the occasion of the debate on the Maastricht Treaty to distance us from our continent sound, as far as I am concerned, like the voices of those who cannot tell the wood from the trees.
Imperfect as is the treaty, I am strongly in favour of ratification because only thus can we at this moment ensure that our Europe develops to our advantage, in the same way as our other European partners.
I should like briefly to sketch in the reason why I stand where I do. I hope that noble Lords will not find some of my remarks over-cynical. Development of the EC broadly consisted of two stages. The first was top down. The top down stage was the selling of a political dream: the political stability of Europe, in particular the elimination of war within Europe. It was to be brought about by a benign economic process, free trade within Europe. That stage was, by and large, an amazing success story.
The second stage is bottom up. The most remarkable manifestation of that stage has been the completion of the single market through the Single European Act. For the first time that was the result of real pressure from those who found Europe still economically divided and who wanted a stalled Community pushed forward. They were the "commercants", the manufacturers, the retailers. Bottom up, even if not as yet the individual voters.
The EC is now definitely and irrevocably at a stage where bottom up is by far the most important and often the only conceivable way forward.
When I look at the more far-reaching commitments that are explicitly included in the Maastricht Treaty, notably common currency and political integration, I

671
do not believe that there is much prospect of those coming to pass unless and until there is real bottom-up demand. That could take rather longer than the convergence of economies, which I judge to be a good deal further off than some of the more extreme Europhile talk would lead us to believe.
We are not alone in our worries in Britain. If one needs to adduce further evidence against the likelihood of precipitate progress one has only to look at the question of the accession to the Community of new members. Broadening will not be easy, but I believe that it is much more imminent than deepening and indeed in the event it might defer deepening even longer than would eventually be desirable. But I am perfectly happy to wait to cross these dangerous bridges when we come to them.
As to a referendum, it is always a seductive idea. Who can be against such an apparently democratic process? For my money Maastricht in reality is not of itself a radical enough departure from what is effectively a continuum of Britain's accession to the European Community to justify a referendum. In any case referendums—this point has been already made —are far too easily diverted and can become a verdict on other current disquiets and uneases in the political entity in which they are being taken rather than on the issue itself. I would certainly find it impossible —I have not so far heard anyone try to do this—to frame a question or even questions which would be adequate to the situation and apt for putting to the electorate to enable them to consider the Maastricht Treaty.
I can recapitulate simply. I am in favour of the Maastricht Treaty in the improved form which was negotiated despite all its imperfections which have been pointed out. Some of the wilder attempts to discredit it are a mixture of views from Cloud-cuckooland, where we do not live and which is not a candidate for membership of the Community. They also betray an inability to see the wood for the trees, by which I mean the real issues as opposed to the apparent issues, and a general wish to reverse the whole move of the UK to full participation in the Community. That, as we know, was decided two decades ago and should stand. We have to be within and there is a huge amount to do from within before the issues which are producing so much heat are upon us. Let us now for Heaven's sake get on with it.
11.42 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I think everyone in this Chamber agrees that this treaty is a flawed treaty. It contains many things that almost everyone would disagree with. Paddy Ashdown, the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, said last week at our spring conference in Nottingham that it was a treaty made by politicians for politicians. It is, of course, right that it should be made by politicians. That is what we as politicians are here for. However, it is wrong that it should be made by politicians for politicians and not by politicians for citizens, which is the alternative. It is important that we are in Europe so that we can make certain that the Community becomes a really democratic organisation and far
672
more so than it has been to date. It is a treaty which is flawed and which is made worse by our own withdrawal from the social chapter.
In the early 1960s, when I owned the magazine Time and Tide, we sponsored a conference entitled "After Britain Enters". I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and probably one or two other noble Lords attended that conference. We were a little before our time and on that occasion we did not manage to enter Europe (although of course we did eventually). From that time I have always been in favour of being part of a European entity. Therefore I shall vote for this Bill as, however flawed the treaty is, it is the only step forward offered to us towards a federal Europe, which I myself want to see, and a step away from the idea that there either is or should be such a thing as national sovereignty in the modern world.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will note that there is no conspiracy in anything which I put forward. It is not secret and is all declared, although the noble Lord may object to it.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that I would not dream of accusing him of conspiracy. It is delightful to find, at least on that side of the House, someone who is prepared to tell the truth.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am very grateful for that remark. I shall continue to tell the truth and say that I am in favour of this treaty because I believe that it is a vote against GATT and free trade, certainly in agricultural products, and for a system of protectionist blocs in agriculture which will be necessary in a world which will be governed by ecological economics. I believe that not only will it benefit ourselves, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would agree, but it will serve the third world.
Thus far I have said what I intended to say when I put my name down to speak. I now turn to the subject of a referendum, but I have- to confess that I am one of those rare people who have had their minds changed by the admirable debate in your Lordships' House. The uses of your Lordships' House are debatable, but I do not believe that it is not our duty, if necessary, to call for a referendum. There is a firm case in favour of one of the uses of your Lordships' House being the protection of the citizens of this country from a unicameral parliament. We may be unelected, but at least that is out in the open, unlike another place which is elected in such a way that it can claim that it is representative without being so.
It is a major principle of the party to which I belong that we should consult the people on any major constitutional issue. If this is not a major constitutional issue, why are we spending two days discussing it? However, during the course of the evening I have been persuaded by the speeches of those who are in favour of a referendum, rather than by those who are against, that it is now too late for a referendum. In particular I found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, who announced that he was in favour of a referendum in principle, very convincing. It is too late to have a referendum now.

673
Let us go ahead and pass this Bill through this House as soon as we can. Perhaps I may say in passing that we should do so without the ridiculous procedure —for this House—of all-night sittings. If I may be allowed just one aside, I remember that in another place my colleague John Pardoe and others at one time decided to go home at 11 p.m. on the grounds that decisions made after that hour were bound to be bad decisions. I believe that that is true and that your Lordships' House will not cover itself in glory if it goes in for such a procedure.
Let us get on with the ratification of the treaty. Let us put back the social chapter if we can. Let us try to achieve a government in this country which believe in Europe instead of pussyfooting into it backwards. In any case, let us play our full part in a Europe, which is in some ways the inheritance of that Christendom from which we all inherit our values.
11.49 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain your Lordships long. I support the Bill which, when it is passed, will ratify the Maastricht Treaty. I am afraid that I do not support it for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I support it because, in spite of all the alien language used in the treaty, this country must not throw away all the gains that have been made in the past 20 years as a result of being a member of the European Community. We should be absolutely clear that that is exactly what would happen if it were not ratified.
If the House votes for a referendum, it would have the same effect. Had the Government proposed a referendum when the Maastricht Treaty was first being discussed with our European partners, it would have had my support even though there would have been difficulty with the wording of the question to be asked of the people. To have one now would be the utmost folly. The British Government would lose all respect from the European political leaders. This country would lose any influence within the European Community for years, if not for ever.
Know that prominent European leaders wish to integrate the Community. They devised the Maastricht Treaty as a vehicle for doing that. I share the horror of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, of the words "ever closer union" which he stated in a letter to The Times today. But—and this is the reality —if we do not ratify the treaty we shall be on our own.
Those noble Lords who have said that we can reject the treaty and still remain members of the Community are not living in the real world. Of course legally they are right. The treaty has to be ratified by all 12 member states to come into effect. However, have they thought of the effects of our rejection of the treaty at this late stage? We would have all the other member states ranged against us as they have all ratified the treaty. That would include Denmark, for whom the British Government, under the skilled leadership of the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, secured the opt-outs which last month enabled the Danish people to vote for the treaty in their second referendum.
674
The millions of pounds of investment from the United States and Japan which have been providing a steadily increasing amount of employment in Britain in the last few years would immediately be put at risk. That investment has come to Britain because of its membership of the European Community. If we had not signed up for the single market it would not have come to this country.
Have those noble Lords who wish to reject the treaty considered what would happen politically if they had their way? An emergency European Council would be called. Britain would well and truly be in the dock. Some arrangement whereby Britain remained outside the main framework of the EC, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty, would have to be agreed.
I cannot see the other 11 countries agreeing to drop the Maastricht provisions because Britain rejected them. They would immediately instigate another agreement but without Britain. Britain would be placed outside the decision-making process with no opt-outs and no say.
Some noble Lords have argued that the centralising provisions of the treaty—notably the aim of a single currency—make it unacceptable. We are not obliged to join a single currency. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that it is necessary to have a single currency. In any event, I do not see a single currency occurring in the way envisaged in the treaty. A central core of countries may form a single currency. That does not oblige us to join. Can noble Lords really envisage Spain, Portugal, Greece or even Italy joining a single currency? I cannot. That does not mean to say that Britain cannot benefit from a low inflation European monetary regime. I find the horror shown by some noble Lords of any fixing of currencies as totally unrealistic, as is the belief among others, and sometimes among the same people, that Britain could behave today as though she were still the leading industrial power in the world with an empire at her command.
I have given only negative reasons for passing the Bill. To be quite honest, I think that they are sufficient. It is quite true that many European leaders look upon this treaty as being a step towards a federal Europe. However, the British Government have shown great skill and determination in making sure that the treaty in practice is no such thing.
The opt-outs on the single currency and the social chapter make sure that Britain is not dragged along the federal path against her will. The fact that defence, home affairs and justice are separate pillars of the European Community in co-operation, and not part of the European Community legal set-up, also ensures that we shall manage our own affairs in these matters.
There are positive recommendations for the treaty: the stressing of subsidiarity, however difficult to define, is a step in the right direction. The increased powers of the European Parliament, although small, will add a check to the European Commission.
However, the main reason that I support the Bill and the treaty is that if Britain does not ratify it, this country will be isolated and alone. We must argue and fight for what we believe in: free trade and an open community of nations, not a closed federal

675
community. But we have to fight and argue for them inside the Community where the decisions will be made.
11.57 p.m.
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, I think I am alone among your Lordships in having recently voted in a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. I voted "no"—not on this occasion on the merits of the treaty, but because I could not go along with the campaign in favour of it. That campaign was pursued by the then Irish Government, based as it was, so far as I could make out, exclusively on the fact that to ratify it would be worth £6 billion in what I believe is known as convergence money. I did not think that £6 billion of someone else's money by itself justified ratifying a treaty with such diverse ramifications as Maastricht. I was not alone in not having read the treaty. I am quite sure that not more than a tiny percentage of my fellow countrymen either possessed or had access to a copy of it, but everyone understands £6 billion, so I was in a very small minority.
I think that exemplifies very well the wide divergence of opinion which exists within the Community, not necessarily between governments but between peoples in the donor and recipient states. I also think that it is the most important issue and at the same time one of the most complex to come before your Lordships' House in the 40 years during which I have been a Member of it.
Having now read most of the abbreviated copies of the treaty which have been sent to me during the past few weeks, I have reservations. However, since most of them will already have been expressed or, in the course of this long debate will be hereafter far more clearly and cogently than I am capable of doing, I do not propose to weary your Lordships with them now.
For a short time I wish to examine the future of the post-Maastricht situation which is, to me, still very obscure. Let us imagine that, as seems probable, Parliament ratifies the treaty. Let us assume that the German Federal Court and the courts in this country give the all-clear, then the treaty will be operational throughout the Community. However, it will not operate in the way that the signatories visualised 17 months ago. I do not see how it can; too much time has passed and a sequence of incidents has revealed too many fault lines for that to be possible. We have had the original Danish referendum, the very close calls in the French referendum, the departure from the exchange rate mechanism of Italy and the United Kingdom and, most importantly, the unforeseen consequences of German reunification. None of that was anticipated in February 1992. Add to that the deepening depression on the Continent, and economic and monetary union, at least within the timetable set out for it, becomes so unrealistic as to be absurd.
Regarding the single currency—the ultimate goal of economic and monetary union—as noble Lords know, Parliament has the last word for its introduction here. It may well be, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson said in a fine maiden speech, that it is foolish to ratify a treaty which one knows perfectly well is not going to work. But at least Parliament has
676
the final word on introducing the single currency here. But we should not be wasting time on such an irrelevant distraction. Rather, the first priority for the Community should be the peace and security of Europe. In that context the state of affairs in Yugoslavia is a cause for very grave concern.
One thing is certain. At the end of the day the electorate will judge the Maastricht Treaty by one criterion only; namely, whether or not it assists towards the creation of a peaceful and stable Europe. By "Europe" they will be thinking of the Continent and not just of those countries within the present boundaries of the European and economic communities.
At the latter end of the 19th century those people who were opposed to the imperialistic policies of Lord Salisbury's Government were sometimes known as Little Englanders. I do not think it is an unfair analogy to describe the President of the European Commission and those who think like him as Little Europeans.
We may not be at the heart of Europe. Elementary geography suggests that we are not. But when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister says that that is where we should be, his statement has this much going for it: we are not far from the heart of Europe, and for the sake of our own security we cannot ignore what goes on there. For nearly 300 years we never have. Since at least the time of Queen Anne and the great Duke of Marlborough Britain has played its part in Europe. More often than not that has been a decisive part. There cannot be a regiment in the Army List which does not number among its battle honours Blenheim, Waterloo, the Peninsula, Balaclava and many others, not to mention the major engagements of two world wars. Those battle honours are living testimony to the part which Britain has played in Europe down through the years. Now they are part of history, and we ignore history at our peril.
Europe will not necessarily become a safer place. We do not know whether America under President Clinton will always be the same America that we have grown used to. Without statesmanship and wise counsel Europe could become a very dangerous place, the aforementioned Yugoslavia being ever before our eyes. It needs Britain and British influence at its centre. For me, Maastricht stands or falls on that issue.
12.5 a.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, the world is developing into some mighty and clear-cut trading blocs. Those blocs are forming at a time when large areas of the developed world are experiencing a level of material well-being hitherto unreached. Furthermore, for whatever reason, the quality of the finished goods which are now so easily purchased has in many cases improved to the point at which turnover in them may well not be as fast in the future as it has been in the past.
One of those great trading blocs is China, for whose people's resourcefulness and industry I have a very great deal of respect. It came as some surprise to me to learn, for instance, that nearly 70 per cent. of China's urban households have colour televisions and

677
81 per cent. have washing machines. Depending on how one measures it, mainland China, with about one-fifth of the world's population, has probably the second largest gross domestic product in the world. It has an economy which is growing at 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. compound and its growth is, if anything, accelerating.
Real gross national product in 1992 grew at 13 per cent. In the third quarter of 1992 national industrial output increased by 21 per cent. and fixed capital investment grew by 38 per cent. In that year private and foreign-invested enterprises grew by around 50 per cent. while state enterprises fell by 1 per cent. Admittedly, retail prices rose overall; but last year the country had a balance of payments surplus. It would surprise me if that balance of payments surplus is not largely maintained, particularly if the yuan is allowed to find its market level.
In the first quarter of this year real gross national product rose 14 per cent. on the same quarter of last year. Industrial output was 22 per cent. higher and fixed capital investment rose by a staggering amount: by state industries, 70 per cent; by local governments, 80 per cent. That in the most populous country in the world.
The consequences of all that will not be lost on your Lordships. The population of China is about four times greater than that of the United States. By the turn of the century it is estimated that mainland China will have the largest economy in the world. It may well leave that of Japan far behind. Even so, Japan is likely to be in third place after the United States, with Germany in fourth place. India, with its vast population of 850 million and its own major economic potential, is currently in fifth place—all measured on purchasing power parities.
Excluding Japan, East Asia, according to the World Bank, will grow at a compound rate of 7.3 per cent. over the next 10 years. That compares with a mere 2.5 per cent. for the top industrial countries of the Group of Seven. It will be no surprise to me whatsoever if for decades to come the economies of the Far East, and particularly that of China, will represent a very important consideration in planning by each of the other industrial blocs into which the world seems to be settling.
At present the EC's gross domestic product is fairly similar to that of the United States. But it does not take much imagination to envisage a European economy overshadowed before long as a result of the major compound growth of those eastern trading blocs. Of course, things are not as simple as that. There are all sorts of additional features to the pattern which give the raw figures a different complexion. For instance, in greater or lesser degree, some countries have large overseas manufacturing bases. We do ourselves. Those distort the picture, but they provide little comfort.
My view is that we have no option but to pursue with the utmost vigour the unity, however it may shape out, that the EC affords. This is no time for being wobbly. The path will be difficult; it may even be uncongenial; and the route will change, but the unity
678
must not. What seems certain to me is that some of the foundation stones on which the EC treaties stand will be sorely tested, and some will undoubtedly crack—even before the deadlines prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty. That may be no bad thing, for it will result in a stronger and better-based evolving product.
Would that in the EC there were already a greater co-operative spirit. The histories of our fellow member states are disparate and rich. There is no reason why the unity that the EC affords should result in such important heritages being devalued. Indeed, the flowering of the cultures is encouraged. But would that the relative strengths of the individual member states were better individually taken advantage of.
The UK, perhaps more than most, has tended to look outwards. Is not that something which should provide an immense source of strength to other EC countries? Other member states, possibly those with histories strong in overseas interests, have similar strengths. Together, the EC member states have interests that span the world.
The road towards greater integration will take a long time to travel and will provide many an inconvenient moment. It may even upturn political parties of its day. Maastricht is only one milestone. Some of its goals are unrealistic; some of its priorities are wrong; but the bonding of a powerful whole must be persisted with. We are right to wade in there and refashion whatever we feel we must. Already, with the benefit of hindsight and, for some, foresight, some of Maastricht's inherent weaknesses have become plain. But let us not abort the journey. We in the EC must get our act together. Over the horizon other trading blocs are developing at a phenomenal rate. We have no time to lose.
12.13 a.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, the case for Maastricht has been more exhaustively made than the case for the alternative—the risk of staying out. Or at least, that particular alternative has been sketched in broad black and white brush strokes. There is the naively optimistic view about Britain "going it" or, dare I say, "floating it" alone, and there is the apocalyptic view that non-alignment spells instant disaster.
I must admit that I lean more towards the latter view, even though the descent may be slow yet inevitable. The assumption that we could go on profiting by the single market, yet not be bound by any further conventions and refinements, may well be starry-eyed. A two-tiered Europe harbours many dangers. The leadership of the continent would be more firmly within the grasp of the Franco-German duopoly; the tenets of faith of a free market currently prevailing may easily be changed in favour of protectionism, which would hurt us badly.
The transatlantic special relationship with a Britain at the heart of Europe has a greater chance of surviving and playing an important and effective part than with a Britain that is out of Europe. That Britain could be easily marginalised and bypassed by the United States in favour of Bonn and Paris. There is also a danger of progressive attrition of the Atlantic

679
alliance heightened by fragmentation in Europe. As for the Commonwealth, for the sake of which British Governments in the 1940s and 1950s gave up the chance of European leadership, this Commonwealth can scarcely be regarded as a coherent entity, and the Royal prefix in what were once the great dominions is not now in great demand.
There are those of us who were wary of the genesis of the treaty, the hectic pace of which, in my view, largely sprang from French malaise and German angst about the consequences of reunification of the two Germanys. But we should pause and reflect that by being at the heart of Europe, giving our counsel and co-determining policies, we have a truly worthwhile and beneficial role to play.
If we were full partners we could have a say about timetables and routes of the European journey. Some Euro-sceptics are alarmed because they fear that there is no scope for flexibility. I think that there is great scope. The ability of the Secretary of State for Employment to stave off the 48-hour week for a decade is a case in point. Why are we so fearful that on this and many other issues we could not rally to our side sympathetic voices in other European countries, stir up debate and change course? As Europe grows by the inclusion of new members the whole thrust will be for looser and not more rigid structures and procedures.
I cannot help feeling that below the surface, in the subconscious of many a Euro-sceptic, lies a sense of national inadequacy, a fear for Britain not being up to competing with clever Frenchmen, wily Italians and ruthless Germans, a fear that the products of the French Hautes Écoles, the boardroom buccaneers of the Ruhr, and above all the Brussels bureaucrats will outsmart and outshine their British counterparts. If we were ready to send our best people to Brussels, British influence in the Commission could be formidable. There are some Members of your Lordships' House whose past record and lasting influence is remarkable. The present ranking British Commissioner is renowned for his intellectual grasp and effective performance.
No, my Lords, Britain's reputation in Europe, West and East, is still very high. In spite of the calamitous waves, currents and campaigns of self-castigation and delegitimisation of our institutions and traditions we are still the envy of those who are short on legitimacy and tradition. As Europe widens and we look into the next century, Britain's role could indeed be increasingly important. But it must be played within the council chamber and not from the ante-chamber!
When this treaty is ratified the primary objective of British foreign policy should be to try to extend the Franco-German axis into an Anglo-French German triangle. Better and closer relations with the Federal Republic is a priority. However, the premise must be that the genuine understanding between France and Germany is unshakeable and is an axiom. Our credentials for shared leadership in Europe is our status as a nuclear power, our seat on the Security Council, our bridging role in the English-speaking world and our distinction of having the oldest and, on balance, the stablest political democratic system in the
680
world. Hence I believe that we should unhesitatingly and massively, on all sides of your Lordships' House, grant the Government the mandate to ratify the Treaty of Maastricht.
12.20 a.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I have listened carefully to most of the debate today but I must apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place until about a quarter to four this afternoon due to the fact that I was travelling back from Rome.
I am not in the league of all those who have and will have spoken in this debate, but I have been privileged to listen to many excellent speeches by your Lordships today. However, the aspects of the treaty that I was going to speak about have been covered a number of times by many of your Lordships and I do not intend to go over that same ground at so late an hour.
But there is the aspect of a common foreign and security policy which I would like to touch on very briefly. Concerns have been expressed about our national interests conflicting with a common foreign and security policy. I believe that they will not conflict because the Government ensured at Maastricht three provisions which they deemed to be absolutely vital. First, there is provision that unanimity will remain the rule in decision-making. Secondly, any decision to make a matter the subject of joint action requires unanimity; and, thirdly, any decision to allow implementation of such decision by qualified majority vote similarly requires unanimity. That means that if the United Kingdom felt that all decisions, however small, should be taken by unanimity, then they would be.
On the security and defence front in which, as some of your Lordships are aware, I take a particular interest, the Government have been keen to see a stronger European contribution to common defences. The treaty of Maastricht provides three basic requirements: first, that any new arrangement should respect NATO obligations and be compatible with the NATO framework; secondly, that defence issues should be dealt with by the Western European Union and not by the European Community; and thirdly, that the Western European Union should not be subordinate to the European Community.
However, I have to sound a word of warning at this stage concerning the proposed levels of United Kingdom Armed Forces, and that is that the future reduced levels will be too low. It is essential that we retain an army of around 130,000 if the United Kingdom is to support the Western European Union in any realistic way in the future. Overall, I do not agree that our national interest will conflict with a common foreign and security policy, but rather it ensures that we remain free to set our own priorities and are able to act independently in foreign and defence policy matters.
In summary, I can see many benefits for the United Kingdom which should come from the ratification of the treaty of Maastricht. There are the benefits of subsidiarity; the provision of fining member nations for non-compliance with legislation; the European Court of Auditors will have more power to fight

681
fraud; there will be additional rights for the European citizen. The United Kingdom has opted out of the social chapter. Britain can decide whether and when to join a single currency; and, lastly, the two pillars for foreign and security policy and justice in home affairs based on inter-governmental co-operation are significant and important matters which will allow us to act independently whenever necessary.
I am convinced that the Treaty of Maastricht represents the best way forward for Britain and that the United Kingdom should take the lead and make its presence felt more in the European Community. We cannot be left out in the margin and there is no alternative to go to. The country benefits from the Treaty of Maastricht and I strongly support the ratification of the treaty.
12.25 a.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I had the great privilege of opening a debate in your Lordships' House on 17th February of this year about the constitutional effects of ratifying the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht. I was therefore then able to say most of what I have to say about this unfortunate treaty and so I do not propose to repeat it all again tonight.
Some of your Lordships may believe that I have been placed to speak last as a kind of punishment for being rebellious about this particular piece of government legislation. There may be some truth in that, but I think it is more the case that as the Government and Opposition Front Benches regrettably appear to agree with each other that the treaty should be ratified, it was felt that someone ought to try to sum up the position of those of us who believe that the treaty should be rejected or, at the very least, that the British people should be offered a referendum before it is ratified.
Obviously, with 52 of your Lordships speaking with such experienced eloquence for some nine and a half hours, this task would be difficult even for someone of much greater skill than me, and so I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for what you are about to hear. Perhaps the best that I can do is to identify some of the main themes which have run through our debate and invite my noble friend the Minister to explain the Government's position on them very clearly when he comes to sum up.
Before I do so, I would like to make a general point. The debate has been of a very high standard even for your Lordships' House. Apart from my noble friend Lady Thatcher herself as a former Prime Minister, an unusual number of former Foreign Secretaries, Cabinet Ministers, European Commissioners and other very senior bureaucrats have spoken. One might say, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield admitted, that they are the generation of people and, indeed, very largely the people themselves who have taken us to where we are now with Europe. I, of course, do not see that as a particularly healthy position. The expensive failure of the common agricultural policy comes to mind, as does the Community's inability to do much about the former Yugoslavia, as also does the EEC's
682
declining share of world trade and its rising unemployment. Several noble Lords have referred to these matters and to the successful and growing markets elsewhere, particularly in China and the Far East.
But the thought which has struck me most forcibly listening to nearly all the debate, and to all the speeches from the political and bureaucratic great and good to whom I have referred, is that most of them spoke favourably of their deeds in bringing us to where we are now, and most of them spoke in favour of ratifying the treaty. But there were two notable exceptions to this self-satisfaction among our architects of modern Europe—and those two exceptions were my noble friend Lady Thatcher and my noble friend Lord Parkinson. I submit that because they had the courage to admit that Europe has not turned out as they had intended it should when they were in power, we should treat their speeches with much respect, and I trust that my noble friend the Minister will answer the points they made very carefully indeed. I would also like to pay what I think is the normal compliment to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his maiden speech, but I do so on this occasion with unusual sincerity. I do think that sometimes we compliment people on maiden speeches —I am sure that it happened to myself when I made my maiden speech—and perhaps we do not think that it was all that great a speech. I happen to think that my noble friend Lord Parkinson's speech was a very great speech. That is what I mean.
So, the first of my themes concerns the further cession of our parliamentary sovereignty to Brussels. It is simply wrong of those who support this treaty and therefore this Bill to pretend that it is not a highly centralising measure. The famous subsidiarity clause in Article 3(b) is meaningless and unenforceable. If my noble friend the Minister does not agree with me, I am afraid that he must identify the areas which fall within the exclusive competence of the Community as Der that clause and those which do not. He must also explain how the Government dare to pretend that the subsidiarity clause in some way strengthens our independence when the conclusions of the Edinburgh Summit itself confirm that it does precisely the opposite. My noble friend Lady Thatcher quoted the paragraph in question which confirms what I have just said so I do not propose to repeat it now.
I am afraid that my noble friend must also say how the union treaty can be described as decentralising when it would introduce or extend the competence of the Council by qualified majority voting or by co-decision into areas of education, culture, public health, consumer protection, trans-European networks and development co-operation, transport research and technological development and the environment. There is also the question of social policy and whether or not we have really opted out of the Community's socialist dreams in this area. Our much-vaunted opt-out is already proving worthless, I would submit, as Brussels fires at us piecemeal what she may have failed to impose wholesale. The unfair competition provisions of the Treaty of Rome are also lurking in the background. I shall return to this area.

683
Although not within the strict ambit of the Bill, but it shows how Brussels's influence is seeping ever outwards, I would ask my noble friend whether he accepts or rejects the contentions that Titles V and VI further pool our sovereignty in the areas of foreign policy, defence, justice, and home affairs. The Foreign Office has said that these titles are to be bound by international law. I ask these questions again, because I put them to my noble friend Lady Chalker on 17th February and I did not get an answer at the time. I would be particularly grateful for the answer to two questions. They are these. First, under paragraphs J.8(2) and J.3(2) of Title V, could the Council prosecute military action, including British troops, by qualified majority vote? Secondly, what weight do the Goverment attach to the Declaration on Voting in the Field of Common Foreign and Security Policy which they have signed, whereby it is agreed that they will, and I quote:
"to the extent possible avoid preventing a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision"?
Surely my noble friend must agree that handing over the control of our troops in action to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers—if that is what these clauses do—is a substantial cession of our sovereignty.
Most importantly to many of us, can I ask my noble friend whether the Government would agree that Her Majesty the Queen should be exempted from citizenship of the Union which is proposed by the treaty, or will the monarch be subject to the duties imposed thereby in Article 8.2? Indeed, since my noble friend Lady Chalker has said on more than one occasion from the Dispatch Box that there are in fact to be no duties imposed by our citizenship of the Union, although Article 8.2. clearly seems to say that there are, would the Government agree to remove the word "duties" from the treaty? Can my noble friend tell us exactly how the Government view Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2?
Before leaving the issue of sovereignty, it would be wrong not to ask the Government if they really believe that we will be able to opt out of monetary union in 1999 if we have by then fulfilled our treaty obligations to meet the earlier stages of returning to the pernicious exchange rate mechanism and so on. I think it would be helpful if my noble friend were to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, particularly, in this regard, and the questions that he put about the creation of a European central bank. I think that the questions of my noble friend Lord Parkinson in this area also bear special interest.
It was interesting to me, too, that my noble friend Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar said that the EMU and so on were deeply flawed. He made it clear that he did not think that they would come about. So, if that is so, do the Government agree that Articles 102 to 109 of the treaty, like our duties under Article 8, are really so unrealistic that they do not mean anything either? If so, would it not be wiser to leave them out of the treaty?
I come then to the second theme which has been put forward by those who support this treaty, warts and all, and they all seem to agree that it is pretty well
684
endowed with warts. This is that we shall in some way be disadvantaged commercially if we do not ratify it, because the other members of the Community will go ahead and set up their Utopia without us. They ask us what is the alternative strategy that we put forward. My noble friend Lord Pym put that forward very strongly. I have to say that my noble friend Lord Cockfield was interesting in that regard, because he said that he regarded the treaty as of little fundamental consequence. I felt that that went some way towards answering the question of my noble friend Lord Pym and others who asked what the alternative was. If it is of little fundamental consequence, it presumably does not matter if we do not ratify it.
If we fail to ratify this treaty we shall be left with the single market, as many of your Lordships have said, which was set up by the Single European Act. We should perhaps pause to reflect that the problems we already face from Europe flow from that Act. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Thatcher has described the Single European Act as burning our fingers. She has also rightly warned that to ratify the Treaty on European Union would be to put our head in the fire.
The 48-hour week; the acquired rights directive; young people at work; meat hygiene; works councils; the irrelevant compliance cost assessments; and the Merchant Shipping Act are just some of the ruinous measures upon which, as a result of the Single European Act, we can already be outvoted in Brussels or overruled by the Luxembourg court.
I should also mention fraud against the Community, which has been the subject of several debates in your Lordships' House and at least two very well informed reports. When the commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, came to see us the other day he had to confess that he could not say to the nearest £5,000 million how much is being stolen annually from the Community's budget.
I could go on about carrots becoming fruits, the shape of cucumbers, the 29,000-word cauliflower directive when, I remind your Lordships, the Ten Commandments contain only 150 words, and so on. Perhaps that is a joke but when I look at it I begin to fear that I am looking at something very sick.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon and others went out of their way to quote a recent letter from the Confederation of British Industry. My noble friend Lord Pym said that the City of London is in favour of the treaty. I am afraid that I must disagree with that. I was extremely refreshed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke. As soon as he began to speak I realised that we were listening to a genuine industrialist and not someone who had dealt merely in the theory of the animal that we are looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, also underlined my remarks.
A number of your Lordships have received a letter from the Confederation of British Industry, which is somewhat contradictory to say the least. I can tell your Lordships that you are about to receive another letter signed by seven of the country's leading industrialists and figures in the City of London. Between them they span a range of experience with

685
which I need not trouble your Lordships; it covers all our overseas interests and all interests in the City of London. If time permitted I should like to quote more from the letter. However, I hope that your Lordships will read it when you receive it. It concludes by stating that,
"Maastricht is the symbol of a bureaucratic and protectionist approach which has accompanied an alarming decline in Europe's share of world trade".
The letter states that for that, and other reasons,
"the majority of well informed businessmen privately look to the House of Lords as the last chance to reject a Treaty which has never commanded popular assent in the United Kingdom and is increasingly failing to do so in the Continent of Europe".
To dismiss the suggestion that we might in some way be "left behind" by a multi-speed Europe I can to no better than ask the Government to refute the speeches made today by my noble friends Lord Parkinson and Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, among others. If the Government cannot say why these noble Lords are wrong, they cannot in good faith proceed with this treaty.
I hope that the Government will not answer in tune with three other themes which are played against those of us who oppose this treaty. The first of these themes points out that Clause 189 of the Treaty of Rome first required European law to be enacted in all member states. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, made that point most forcefully. Qualified majority voting is in the Single European Act. So, the theory goes, we cannot or should not start complaining about it all now. But the truth is that we are only beginning to realise the true nature of the beast to which the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act gave birth. Surely even the Government must agree that when you have burnt your fingers, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher confessed that we did —and we did so, of course, somewhat under her guidance—you do your best to cure the resultant pain; you do not go ahead and put your head in the fire.
The second of these other themes suggests that we should ratify the treaty and then "get in and fight to put things right". We are supposed to do this from a new vantage point at the heart of Europe. Well, my experience on your Lordships' Select Committee leads me to opine that the European beast simply does not have a heart. It is a huge and growing bureaucracy; so it has an insatiable lust for power, but nothing resembling a heart.
I have also to point out that one of our main aims in 1972 was to get in and reform the common agricultural policy and that we have singularly failed to do so. I understand that in the United Kingdom it now adds about £250 per person per annum to the cost of our food.
Finally I must point out that Britain has only 10 votes out of 76 when it comes to counting the qualified majority of 54, and only 16 per cent. of the votes in the European Parliament. So it is pretty obvious that our prospects of slaying this dragon are indeed negligible.
The third theme that some of those who wish to ratify the union treaty advance to those of us who do not is not only illogical, it is also dishonourable. It
686
goes like this: "Well, don't worry. The union treaty is so crazy that it cannot possibly work or at least a lot of it is going to take so long to bring about that it really is not worth bothering about, so let's ratify it to save the political careers of those who have been misguided enough to support it, and then it will just fall apart and we can all relax." I submit that that is not a solution which is honourably open to your Lordships' House. It is surely our duty to examine the treaty and the Bill—
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House who said that which he has just described? I should be interested to know to whom he ascribes those dishonourable sentiments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was giving the gist of what has been said to me privately by a number of people on these Benches. A number of noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this evening have said that much of the treaty—for example, Articles 102 to 109—will not come about. They felt that the whole business of monetary union was very unlikely. I do not include my noble friend Lord Carrington in the category of my paraphrase of what other people have said to me; but my noble friend said that much that is contained in the treaty occurs too early and is unlikely to come about in the foreseeable future. No doubt we can look at Hansard and, if I am wrong, I shall be happy to apologise.
I submit that that is not a solution which is honourably open to us. It is surely our duty to examine this treaty and the Bill which proposes to import it into British law and to amend it in accordance with our consciences. Perhaps I may remind those who wish to take the line, or something like it, which I have just spelt out, that there were those who hoped that it was not worth taking the Bolsheviks seriously or, indeed, Hitler. I do not believe that we can afford to dismiss lightly the prospect of an unelected European super-state with all the attendant dangers which have been so ably defined by so many of your Lordships this evening.
Finally, there is an argument which is perhaps peculiar to those of us on the Conservative Benches and which is largely lying below the surface of our debate this evening, although at least one noble Lord touched on it. Some supporters of the treaty on these Benches have said to me, "No Maastricht means no Major and that means no Conservative Party". This cannot be true. If it was, surely the Labour Party would be supporting a referendum on the union treaty. After all, it supported one for Wales and another for Scotland. No my Lords. If your Lordships' House was to insist on a referendum, and if the British people rejected the treaty, and if the Prime Minister felt that he then had to resign—which I very much hope he would not—the Conservative majority in the House of Commons would hold and a new leader would be elected.
In the wake of a referendum, the Prime Minister or his successor would be leading a more united Conservative Party because we could all abide by the decision of the people. If noble Lords opposite do not agree, they have the solution. It is an insult to the

687
British people to suggest that they would vote against the union treaty because they would really be voting against the Government, or that they would not understand it. A brief referendum campaign would explain to them exactly what it is about, even if they do not already have a pretty shrewd idea, which most British people do. I think that it would also explain the treaty to a number of your Lordships who have spoken tonight in its support but who, with the greatest respect, I am not entirely sure have read it. Some noble Lords have stated that it is too late to have a referendum on the union treaty. I would point out that the Danes had one only a fortnight ago.
There is another good reason why this issue uniquely deserves a referendum as I mentioned on 17th February. Most of us who dislike referenda do so because we trust our system of parliamentary democracy to take our national decisions for us, but that trust can no longer hold when the decision in question would undermine the very system of parliamentary democracy upon which we otherwise rely. A decision to ratify the treaty would undermine that system in precisely that way and it could not be very long before our parliamentary democracy collapsed. Therefore, in my view, which is shared with many others of your Lordships, the people should be consulted on this issue.
For all these reasons, I hope that your Lordships will find it in your hearts to amend the Bill and the treaty upon which it rests, and I hope that you will have the courage to test the opinion of the British people before the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht is ratified.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, with the winding-up speeches we are now approaching the end of this epic debate. There have been nearly 10 hours of speeches today, although we have another day tomorrow, as the Chief Whip is reminding me by his visible body language even at this hour of night.
There has barely been a contribution that has not in one way or another held your Lordships' attention. I was very struck by the noble Lord, Lord Pym, who categorised your Lordships as critics or creators. "Critic" is a fair description because most of those who oppose the Bill rest their case on negative arguments. On the other hand, "Creators" is a fair description too, because those in favour of Maastricht recognise that it cannot be an end in itself and that it will need following up. It will need following up for the 1996 IGC and, in the case of monetary union and a common security and defence policy, it will need following up a great deal more urgently.
Of the creators in tonight's debate it is right for me to start by mentioning noble Lords from these Benches, not only the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead - and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will wish to notice the persistence of the leader of my party in being here until the very end of the debate -but also the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont, Lord Ezra and Lord Cobbold; and in particular the admirable speech of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. From other Benches, we heard the contributions of
688
the noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Carrington, Lord Cockfield, Lord Hayhoe, Lord Howe, Lord Thorneycroft and Lord Rawlinson.
On the side of the critics a moving speech was made by Lord Tonypandy, a characteristically exuberant speech by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, a much trailed, but I am bound to say, to me, slightly disappointing, speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and a most notable maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I owe the noble Lord an apology. Although slightly late into the Chamber, so anxious was I to hear him that I took my place while he was speaking. I am glad that I did, as it turned out, because I felt some tension. I can rarely remember a speech which I admired so much both for its construction and for its delivery while disagreeing with almost every word said.
It was difficult to avoid the impression at times that we were discussing not just the future of Britain in Europe but also the future of the Conservative Party. Who can doubt, looking back, that the opt-out on the Social Chapter, which has its merits and demerits, has far more to do with attempting to unite a party which today, as on other occasions, has been visibly divided, than it has to do with the merits of the case? We now know that on this issue, and maybe on others, the party is looking to different leaders and different whips. I read in the public prints that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, whose very interesting speech preceded my own, is the whip of the dissident tendency on the Benches opposite. Having heard his speech, I cannot imagine that the dissident tendency could be in more appropriate hands than his.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. My position has simply come about because of the debate in my name of 17th February. I can assure the noble Lord that my position is nearer to that of a fag running between some noble Lords who are interested in some of these issues.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I will have to accept that the noble Lord's role is more humble than I had thought from reading the newspapers. The question of the referendum has been mentioned throughout the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred to that matter in a typically fair and appropriate manner. I believe that there is a strong case that has to answered for a referendum on constitutional issues and this is a constitutional issue. But I, like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who spoke from our Benches, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, believe that if there were a time for a referendum on the issue of sharing British sovereignty —a constitutional issue—it was some 10 years ago and it is now too late.
Now is not the time to hold such a referendum for another very practical reason. The whole of Europe is waiting with growing impatience for us to make up our minds in this country and to get on. So both for the constitutional reasons which have been prayed in aid and for the practical reason that the future of the European Community is now waiting on us, I have come to the conclusion that the referendum is a

689
displacement activity for those who oppose the Maastricht Treaty and who seek to find backdoor means of doing what they fear they are not able to do by the front door.
However, one of the reasons that the case for a referendum attracts some public resonance—a reason that we in this House should accept—is that there has been a notable gap between the governors and the governed on the issue of Europe ever since the days of the first referendum campaign which many of us in this House took part in. There is a gulf in understanding and in consent. One does not have to subscribe to the conspiracy theory put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to think that there is a problem of leadership and a democratic deficit which it is up to the political classes of all parties to try to bridge by every means that they can.
One thing that the Government could do once the Maastricht Treaty is through—I believe that it will not be long delayed—is to ensure that in the run up to the IGC in 1996 this is not treated wholly and solely as a matter to be discussed within the governing party but that there is some kind of national debate. The Prime Minister has opened the door to this and we on these Benches would respond positively to the idea that there is an alternative version of Europe which could command far wider agreement than could possibly be reached solely and unilaterally within the Conservative Party. I think, for instance, that there is a widespread perception that the Europe of the future should be more democratic. There is a fairly general agreement that subsidiarity should be made to mean something and there is fairly general support for the proposition that Europe should be less bureaucratic and more democratic. That might mean that we would have to look at the electoral system for the European Parliament and that we should be prepared to give the European Parliament more power rather than less power and make in some measure the Commission and the Commissioners more responsible to it. It would certainly mean that we would have to progress the idea of citizenships, rights and duties of one kind or another in Europe.
But in looking to subsidiarity as part of the solution the Government in particular should recognise—perhaps the noble Earl would care to respond to this in his summing up —that subsidiarity cuts both ways. It is not simply a matter of dragging back from Brussels things that should be done more appropriately at the level of the nation state. It means recognising, as every other country in Europe does, that many things done at the level of the nation state should be done by local government and should be done in Scotland and Wales because subsidiarity is about the dispersal of power and not about its monopolisation at the level of the nation state.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in an exceptionally interesting speech referred to the idea that concepts are not really the British way of doing things. Of course we all know that that is the case. The British are famously pragmatic. I suspect that when dealing with constitutional matters concepts can be helpful, not only because we are dealing with
690
European partners who are used to conceptual thinking and who are more familiar with concepts, in a way in which we pride ourselves that we are not, but because we are ourselves having to deal with them in order to work out what the constitution of the post-Maastricht Europe should be. To paraphrase Edith Cavell, pragmatism is not enough. In this country we have to think more about the future of Europe instead of emoting, we have to negotiate instead of declaiming and we have to look ahead instead of living so much in our own glorious past.
In his opening remarks the noble Lord the Leader of the House attacked the concept of federalism, and other noble Lords have leant on that. It is certainly true that federalism has been given a very bad name in Britain, not least through the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. It has been interpreted as being synonymous with a European super state. That is not what federalism is. Federalism is a system of sharing and layering power between communities, between peoples, between nations and between regions. Speaking as an unreconstructed federalist from Benches which have traditionally been federalist, although giving the concept a different name if that makes it easier for the party opposite, I believe that in considering the post-Maastricht dispensation in Europe some of those ideas will prove extremely helpful.
Finally, in this debate today what we have really been talking about—and what has given a special character to the debate—has been Britain's future. Many noble Lords have spoken of Britain's economic future. I wonder whether there is any viable alternative for us as an offshore Hong Kong or Singapore. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, dealt with that concept well. However, I suspect that that vision of a service economy is a symptom of what has gone wrong with the British economy in the past 10 years. Insufficient emphasis has been put on manufacturing industry and the competitiveness it needs in order for us to succeed in today's world. The idea that we can be the Hong Kong or Singapore of Europe is an illusion.
We have also been talking about Britain's political future. Those of your Lordships who have pointed out that from the beginning the European Community has had a political dimension have been perfectly right. Anybody who has represented that it is wholly and solely a matter of economies and markets has been misleading the British people. It has never been so. The Community has always had a political dimension. Would it not be a great deal better to face up to that and try to shape that political future in a way which we British would find more congenial, in the direction of co-operation and partnership rather than of posturing? We should certainly avoid what will not be splendid isolation but will in reality be pathetic isolation if we choose to go the non-European route.
I accept the sincerity of those who fear some loss of autonomy and identity in moving forward with the European project. However, I remind those latter-day English nationalists—and on the whole they are English nationalists rather than Scottish and Welsh nationalists—of the old saw:

691
"What should they know of England who only England known?".
I would certainly say to the Government that the time has come, to take the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, for the Government to get on with it. The Government should stop tiptoeing around on eggshells trying to appease those of their supporters who are still not happy. There is too much else to do in Britain and in Europe, and it needs to be done urgently. I believe that if they do get on with it and make plain their commitment to European progress the Government will be pleasantly surprised to find just how much support there is for them in this House and the whole country.
1 a.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that this has been a remarkable debate. At the very outset I also wholeheartedly agree with him, and indeed, it is obvious, with the whole House, that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was a joy to hear even though, like the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I hardly agreed with anything he said. His speech was fluent, well delivered and humorous, and I am delighted that he was able to express the views that he did in that way. As one whom he shadowed, and whom I later shadowed, it is very nice that he is present in this Chamber.
At the beginning of the debate, my noble friend Lord Richard referred to the substantial amendments to the Bill which had been carried in another place. I hope that in his reply the Minister will recognise the significance of those changes. They were changes that were undertaken at the initiative of the Opposition. I hope that he will confirm that there will be no further amendments suggested by the Government. I am sure that they would not be so unwise as to do that.
Of course, the difference between the Government and ourselves is that we support the treaty and we object to the opt-outs in the Bill. We recognise that the treaty is imperfect. It is a package. No package of measures can ever be ideal. But what really is at stake is whether Europe can be better motivated to deal with the huge problems which beset the Community and the United Kingdom—I refer to problems of unemployment and economic recession and problems affecting foreign policy—if we were to resile from the position adopted with regard to the treaty. I believe that the argument must go in favour of the treaty.
To risk losing the dynamic to the Community that Maastricht represents would not only be futile but positively dangerous from the point of view of this country. First, critics of the treaty urge that they support a wider conception of a community. Indeed, if they were to have their way, what would be put at risk is accession by those very countries—Austria, Sweden, Finland and others—which have been shadowing the negotiations and have approved the result. We would put at risk our standing, and influence with the developing countries of the world which have put so much store on the Lome agreements which have been of enormous significance. They have been a major exemplary factor in dealing
692
with developing countries of the world. We would put at risk the wider development of the European Community. It would diminish our ability to compete effectively and indeed efficiently; and we would be unable to assist those least favoured areas, communities and people who find the Community able to help them in many material respects today.
By no means least, what would be the attitude of the burgeoning democracies of Eastern and Central Europe? Would they find it attractive to have a community that was unable to achieve those results that were set for it by the internal market of which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was a very significant architect? They would find that the position would be bleak and unhelpful to them.
The concept of community is based on the fact that the sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present. By living in an isolationist world —and in my submission that is the logic of the attitudes adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher--how can those nations ensure their own progress or control their own future? It was amidst the changing scenery that the European idea was born and indeed lives on.
The concept that was perceived in the early 1970s, and indeed before that, has been matched by considerable achievement. Yes, there have been setbacks. There have been periods of great disappointment. There has been stagnation. But there has been considerable achievement too. The nations of Europe relinquished hostilities in favour of economic co-operation and interdependence. Today, as has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords, armed conflict between member states of the European Community is absolutely inconceivable. That confirms the remarkable progress and sense of collective interest that have come to permeate the European Community. The member states' initial integration in specific economic sectors has spilt over into a range of economic activities. We have had the internal market, largely completed now, albeit with some significant exceptions. Then we have also had the concept of European monetary union. I agree with those who say that the timetable for that is slipping, but it is not an idea that will go away. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will readily agree, I am sure, it is necessary to adopt timetables because that concentrates the mind. We did not succeed in having the entirety of the internal market in operation by 1992, as was originally envisaged. I think that progress is bound to be made on the EMU front in the not-too-distant future.
Over two decades, the EPC has matured into a recognisable common foreign and security policy and a commitment to political union. But however imprecisely defined, this concept is capable of being accomplished.
Of course, we must not be purblind about the difficulties that face us and I think that there was over-optimism in the early 1970s and further over-optimism with the Cecchini Report. But what happened in the referendum of June 1975. 18 years ago, is that two-thirds of the voters in Britain endorsed British membership of the European Community. They set the seal on what was already

693
obvious, that the only choice for Great Britain was between accepting solitary decline or integration into a larger grouping. This effaced the illusions that dead realities leave in the minds of nations and of men.
Of course, what we witnessed from the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is an extraordinary misunderstanding or misstatement of what the European Community is about. The Commission has piled on extra burdens, she said. The Commission does not have the power to do that. I should have thought that a former Prime Minister would recognise that. Then she decided to savage the European Court of Justice. She attacked the way in which the judges were chosen. I believe that her concept of the rule of law, of which she spoke, is that it is her concept that must be obeyed; anything else is unacceptable.
The Community was never just a technocratic idea; nor was it only about the creation of a single market, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said. It involves, and always has done, a form of economic growth that respects human values and human needs, which is represented by the extension of the Community's social and regional policies.
These were bold concepts. Regional policy was needed to counteract the concentration of the Community's economic activities in key centres at the expense of the periphery, and the United Kingdom is at the periphery. It involves a transfer of Community resources from the most prosperous to the least favoured areas, based on need and not on a national quota. Social policy is designed to supplement, not to replace national social provisions. The European Community wishes to establish a consensus in matters of social justice, minority and women's rights and working conditions.
I turn from that to some of the myths, the caricatures and even misrepresentation of the Community, the echoes of Bruges, that we heard today. "Some sort of identikit European personality" was the argument at Bruges. That is a travesty of reality; it fails to acknowledge the historical basis of the Community experiment. There never has been an intent to end diversity; quite the reverse. It represents the rich thread of diversity that will benefit the European Community and influence the evolution of its powers. That is why we have to be full and not semi-detached members of the Community.
The positive developments are reflected in Maastricht and in other ways. Every citizen will have the right to petition the European Parliament and seek redress for maladministration through the ombudsman of the Parliament. Certain common electoral rights will be available. The right conferred on people by the European Court of Justice to be able to bring actions to correct breaches of Community directives and regulations by member states was established in the Francovitch case. There is a recognition, which is disliked by her; namely, that the court is the guardian of the treaty and it has done a good job in that regard.
So far as questions of sovereignty are concerned, one could not help feeling when listening to the noble Baroness that it was not the sovereignty of the people that she was concerned about, but the sovereignty as
694
a former Prime Minister that she sought to enjoy in this country. She and others distort the concept of sovereignty. It is a fictional approach. It invents a sovereignty that no longer exists. This island is not in all respects an island any more. We have interdependence in trade, defence and foreign policy which is crucial to our political existence. The British courts are subordinate to the European Court of Justice.
The noble Baroness is a lawyer. She knew that. Today she complains about it. She helped to sign a treaty that did so much to qualify that very sovereignty and other ideas of which she speaks. To take a single example of what she signed up to, one has only to look at Article 118B:
"The Commission shall endeavour to develop the dialogue between management and labour at European level which could, if the two sides consider it desirable, lead to relations based on agreement".
The very concept of consensuality to which she objected so strongly in government was something that she then subscribed to.
Then there is the pejorative use of the term "Brussels", frequently used by the press but also by politicians, which conjures up a picture of a monolithic leviathan controlling all aspects of everyday life in Europe—quite an achievement, I may say, for a bureaucracy of about 17,000 people, which is about the size of the Wandsworth borough in London.
I turn to the question of the opt-outs--the "game, set and match" notion of the Prime Minister, a true example of political astigmatism on a grand scale. Far from "game, set and match", I believe that the opt-outs are dangerously injurious to the interests of this country. They marginalise us in decisions which will vitally affect the growth of the Community. We shall lose whatever prospects we might otherwise have had of London becoming the base of the European Central Bank. We shall effectively be excluded from deliberations affecting the very issues of the common currency and the European monetary union which have concerned a number of noble Lords tonight. As my noble friend said at the very beginning of the debate, who can argue that we can be isolated miraculously from the effects of these conceptions?
As far as the Social Chapter opt-out is concerned, here again Britain will have no say. Governments, companies, trade unions and individuals in other member states will be able to have recourse to the European Court of Justice. It is not at all unlikely that litigation could arise in this country which will place us in a very difficult position. Eleven member states will be free, as a result of our voluntary exclusion, to develop a common communautaire social policy, establishing a framework for labour relations and social conditions which may be disparate from our own experience, but we shall have no hand in making any decisions about that.
I wonder what all the fuss is really about. Is the Social Chapter so radical? It is about equality for women; rights for ethnic minority communities; maternity benefits; maximum working time; annual holiday entitlement; rights for 3 million unemployed people; health and safety at work; protection of children and adults from exploitation at work;

695
improved integration of people with disabilities. For us those are issues of principle. We wholly reject the policy which leads to the sort of advertisements about which my noble friend was talking before, which appeared in Germany and which sought to solicit investment in Britain on the basis that social charges and employment protection are significantly worse here than they are in Germany. We reject the idea of opt-out as barren, negative and harmful. We are not alone in that respect. The present President of the Board of Trade, in 1989 in an article in The Times, said:
"Our absence can only permit the self-interest of other nations. We paid a heavy price when others designed the CAP. It would be unforgivable to repeat that mistake in industrial and financial policies. The same argument applies to the social charter".
That was from the President of the Board of Trade. We know that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, accepts that view, too. We unhesitatingly support the Social Charter. We believe that the Bill as amended is better than it was. We shall seek to improve it further without endangering the question of ratification. We want to strengthen the idea of community—a strong, effective and attractive Community which will be capable of facing so many of the challenges that lie ahead.
Further political integration, which in my view is desirable, must be justified so far as national electorates are concerned. Recent uncertainties mean that we cannot take anything for granted. That is why Maastricht, stressing the important issue of accountability, needs to be taken further, not least as the European Community widens and indeed deepens its commitments.
I believe that what we have done to improve the Bill is something for which we should be applauded. I hope that the Minister will do that in his response.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Thatcher I wonder whether I could refer him again to Article 1 18B, which he criticised her for signing. That article does indeed say:
"The Commission shall endeavour to develop the dialogue between management and labour at European level which could, if the two sides consider it desirable, lead to relations based on agreement".
I want to ask the noble Lord whether he is putting that article in the same category as the recent directives on young people at work and works councils, to which this Government object, and even perhaps to the acquired rights directive. I do not think that that sentence is in the same category at all.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I cannot take very long to deal with that point, but it was an obligation. The word "shall" is used. The point I made was that the noble Baroness, during her whole period in government, objected to the consensual nature that is implicit in the article in relations between management and labour. I believe that what is set out here was essentially based on that consensual element. It is remarkable that the article went on to say:
"if the two sides consider it desirable, lead to relations based on agreement".
696
I do not know whether the noble Lord objects to that. I certainly do not. I believe that it was necessary to build on it. But I do not want to take up further time now.
1.17 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have indeed been extremely privileged to take part in this quite fascinating debate today. It has shown the House at its very best and the quality of speeches has been immense. It has been a debate that everybody in the country should read. My mind went back to 1972 when I sat on the Cross-Benches and we were debating whether to join the European Community. My noble friend Lord Gray was persuaded by the good arguments that we should stay out; though highly sceptical, I was persuaded by the better arguments that we should be in. I think that the better of the arguments today has been that we should sign the Maastricht Treaty.
An abiding memory of today's debate will be the noble Lord, Lord Richard, looking absolutely steadfastly straight ahead and trying to portray that in fact the Labour Party was united on Europe. If he had had wing mirrors on the Dispatch Box he would not have seen any nods of the head. He would have seen but shakes of the head. In fact, he would have had as much support behind him then as he has now. He will recall that at Third Reading in another place the Leader of his party gave that great rallying cry, giving a great demonstration of leadership, "Abstain, fellow MPs, abstain". Yet four voted for and 66 voted against; 25 per cent. of the party defied the Leader's instructions.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to ask whether or not the Government want our support on the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I always welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as he knows, but it was only right to put what he said in context. Perhaps he does not like that.
It is now over a year since the Treaty on European Union was signed at Maastricht. Debate has been intense, both in this country and in other parts of the Community. That is clearly as it should be, given the important issues raised by the treaty. Much has happened in Europe during that time. The single market is open. Enlargement negotiations have begun and the Community is pressing forward with deeper relations with the emerging democracies of Eastern and Central Europe. The Edinburgh European Council was the highlight of a successful UK presidency and included a milestone agreement settling the Community's finances until the end of the century.
All those achievements show the influence that we have in the Community—influence that we shall continue to build on when the treaty is ratified, and influence that we must not lose. As my noble friend Lord Hayhoe said, it is worth reminding ourselves of the Government's careful preparation before the treaty was signed. The issues received much more

697
detailed attention both in Parliament and in the country before the Maastricht European Council than in other member states.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht having fully exposed his negotiating objectives to Parliament, and returned having achieved those objectives. As my noble friend Lord Cockfield reminded us, the treaty that was signed was not the high point of the centralising and federalising drive; others pushed for more. But it was the good work of my noble friend Lady Thatcher and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that brought back a treaty that was much more realistic and suited to Britain's needs.
Just as your Lordships warmly endorsed the agreement when we debated it on 18th December 1991, I am confident that your Lordships will want to put us in a position to ratify the treaty as soon as practicable. What about discussion following the signing of the treaty? Parliamentary scrutiny in the United Kingdom has already taken over three times as long as the next member state. It may be that by the time we finish our discussions our procedures will have taken as long as all other member states put together. As the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, said, we should bring that to a conclusion as soon as possible within the usual procedures of this House.
As I know that my noble friend Lady Chalker will want to respond tomorrow on many topics which your Lordships have raised, I intend to concentrate on the financial and economic aspects of the treaty, and also to answer some questions. Those aspects fall into two main areas: improvements in financial management and economic and monetary union.
An aspect of the treaty which has so far only received attention from my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is the improvements we secured on the Community's financial management and accountability arrangements. However, I know that that is quite rightly an issue of concern to a number of your Lordships. As a result of UK pressure, notably that of your Lordships, Maastricht marks the beginning of a sea change in attitudes to fraud. The treaty will reinforce the new political will to tackle fraud against the Community Budget; fraud against the Community taxpayer. However, having recently discussed those issues at length, I recognise that the House feels that more still needs to be done.
Therefore I turn to economic and monetary union. I intend to highlight the main features in the Government's approach because of their importance. But it may be helpful if I first remind your Lordships of the history of economic and monetary union in Europe. It is a long history. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned it in detail so I have trimmed my remarks.
The Maastricht Treaty is far from being the first time that the idea of a single currency has been on the Community's agenda. It is worth recalling, particularly for the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, who sadly is not in his place —I hoped that he would be because he seems to have forgotten—that in 1972 an agreement between heads of state and governments of
698
existing and future member states, including the UK, agreed a timetable for full monetary union by 1980. We all knew about it because we agreed to it before we joined. We know now that it did not happen as planned, but the idea did not go away.
In January 1979 the European monetary system was created and most Community countries linked their currencies through the EMS to the ERM. This was designed at the outset as a means of making a zone of monetary stability. My noble friend Lady Thatcher quoted the preamble to Maastricht:
"a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer Union".
Is that any more sinister than the Single European Act, which begins with a joint will
" to transform relations as a whole among their states into a European union?"
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, reminded us, the Single European Act uses the word "union" more than once. Indeed, the title above Article 102a in the present treaty, as amended by the Single European Act, reads:
"Co-operation in Economic and Monetary Policy (Economic and Monetary Union)".
But there is nothing new about the economic policy co-operation among member states. The Treaty of Rome required member states,
"to co-ordinate their economic policies",
and to treat,
"policy with regard to rates of exchange as a matter of common concern".
In 1974 the Council adopted a decision on economic convergence that provided for a heavier and more intense process of economic policy co-ordination than is contained in the Maastricht Treaty. The 1974 decision was replaced by a further decision on economic convergence in March 1990. This was one of the main texts establishing the first stage of EMU. And it contains, to a very large extent, the same arrangements for multilateral surveillance and co-ordination of economic policies as are now in the treaty. I put it to the House that there are three essential points to remember: the changes in the Maastricht Treaty do not represent a sea-change in economic policy co-operation; in both stages 2 and 3 of EMU, prime responsibility for economic policy remains firmly in national hands; and our present responsibility for monetary policy remains unchanged during stage 2 unless and until we decide to participate in stage 3.
The Government's policy on EMU is well known. It is based on three fundamental principles. Although the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, spelt out some of its advantages, we do not believe that the present Community is ready for a single monetary policy and currency. Indeed my noble friend Lord Harding of Petherton felt that some member states would never be ready. We do not believe that we should rush into a rigid timetable for a single monetary policy some time in the future. For many of the reasons mentioned by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, it is premature to decide on any timetable now. But equally we do not want to take a decision now which would once and for all cut ourselves off from developments with major implications for the economic and financial interests of this country. That is why we have been fully involved in the negotiations which led to the

699
Maastricht Treaty and, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, implied, it is why we will continue to play a full part in stage 2. But, and reflecting some of the concerns mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ashburton, we negotiated the UK protocol—our opt-out clause.
The UK protocol provides full protection of our position. It explicitly allows us to take a further decision, nearer the time, on whether or not moving to the third stage of EMU is in our best interests. That decision, which is more important than anything in the present Bill, can only be taken in the light of all the circumstances at the time. And, as my noble friend Lord Donegal] reminded us and the Bill makes clear, Parliament will be fully involved in that decision.
I am aware of the argument that the UK protocol is effectively irrelevant because politically we shall be unable to avoid joining if enough other member states appear ready to move to stage 3. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, ran the argument that once the momentum for a single currency is sufficiently strong we shall be swept along and the views of Parliament will be swept aside. I have to disagree most forcefully with him. I believe that to be nonsense.
In fact, as in law, we have a real choice. In law our position is absolutely clear. The Bill explicitly requires a full Act of Parliament before we can notify the Council that we wish to participate in stage 3. In reaching that decision, Parliament will obviously take account of all relevant factors, both political and economic. The treaty is unambiguous. If we decide not to participate, we shall be exempt from the full range of stage 3 provisions listed in the UK protocol.
The Government's consistent approach has been to play a full role in preparing for EMU to ensure that the agreements reached are soundly based and workable. At the same time we have preserved our flexibility to decide, in the light of circumstances at the time, whether to join others in Stage 3. If we were to opt out now we would not only lose our influence in the Council but—and I put this to my noble friend Lord Parkinson, whose maiden speech we were privileged to hear—we would close off options unnecessarily.
Because there are serious drawbacks in joining in monetary union—and here I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—we pressed for demanding convergence criteria to be incorporated in the treaty. These criteria are based on the same fundamentals of free markets, low inflation and stable monetary conditions that form the basis of our own anti-inflationary economic strategy. Again, I was pleased to note what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, had to say on the question of low inflation and stable monetary conditions. They are valid whether or not we take part in a monetary union.
So let me make it absolutely clear. We are not today deciding whether to join a single currency. I agree with my noble friend Lord Carrington that in the event of the Government proposing a move to Stage 3 we will need to be sure that we and the rest of the Community are ready. Only then will we be sure that we are on the right train and going in the right direction.
700
I turn briefly to subsidiarity. This whole question is a powerful expression of a new purpose and intention of the Maastricht treaty. I welcome what my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark had to say. It is through subsidiarity that we can take into account the concerns of those from Muckle Flugga to Crete. Article 3(b) provides a specific treaty base and so gives the principle firm, legal footing. The detailed guidelines and procedures adopted at the Edinburgh European Council outlines how subsidiarity will in practice be applied. The Commission has said that from now on national action should be the rule and Community legislation the exception.
Furthermore, a comprehensive report will be made to the Council this December identifying legislation which could be dropped. Of course, I shall look into what my noble friend Lord Buxton said about lorries. What I can do is assure my noble friend just what an important part subsidiarity has already played in the transport sector. My right honourable friend John MacGregor, the Secretary of State for Transport, is at the moment at the Transport Council and I know that many of the proposals that were due to come forward to the June council have been amended because of subsidiarity. It is in fact already working.
I put it to my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer: would they actually prefer the present situation where there is no subsidiarity and no lever to check on what the Commission put forward, or would they prefer the Maastricht Treaty when at long last it does give Ministers acting in the Council a form of words and a positive weapon with which to try to pull back some of the things which have gone on in the past? I believe that if noble Lords really do consider that matter there is no question but that the provisions in the Maastricht Treaty are of great benefit to Ministers acting on behalf of Britain in the Council of Europe.
The campaign against Maastricht thrives on misrepresentation and it was my noble friend Lord Buxton who mentioned one. He said that the Army in Port Stanley had to use imported meat because the local abattoirs do not meet EC standards. That of course is rubbish. The Falkland Islands are not within the territorial scope of the EC treaties. In particular, EC meat hygiene rules do not apply there. It is in fact MoD policy which is in force and that is to supply service personnel overseas with food on an equivalent standard to that which they receive here. My noble friend might query that, but he must not query through the European Community. He must query it direct to the United Kingdom.
I turn to the important question of political union. I found that the discussions we have had this evening very revealing. I have known for many years that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has been against the whole of the Community—against the Treaty of Rome. I was not so sure that that was the position of my noble friends Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Beloff. What has clearly come out—and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson for his honesty—is that he is not just against the Treaty of Maastricht; he is against the Single European Act. I hope that he will make clear where he stands on the Treaty of Rome as

701
well because that is essential if your Lordships are to consider this matter. We need to be absolutely clear whether it is the Treaty of Maastricht that is opposed or the whole of the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act.
Let us look at the situation of abandoning Maastricht and continuing with the status quo. It is not a feasible option to abandon Maastricht and to proceed as before on the basis of the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act as if nothing had happened. It is now evident that some of those opposed to the treaty do not want that situation; they want to go beyond it. The Community is not frozen in time, but is an evolving process. Nearly all our partners have already ratified the treaty. If it could not enter into force, they would not quietly abandon its objectives. That would, indeed, frustrate the question of enlargement, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. My noble friend Lord Prentice was right that it would condemn the whole Community to a long period of introspection and in-fighting when Europe needs to be outward-looking.
Above all, I put it to the House that it would marginalise the United Kingdom, reducing our influence, our ability to shape our future and our prosperity. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said that it would put at risk London's position as a financial centre and the United Kingdom's attractiveness to Japanese and US investment. Let us not forget, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal reminded us at the beginning of the debate, that in 1991 we received 41 per cent. of all Japanese and 36 per cent. of American investment in the EC. All my discussions in the Far East when I was Minister of State in the Foreign Office convinced me, just as they seem to have convinced my noble friend Lord Harmsworth that my noble friend Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke is wrong and my noble friend Lord Pym is right: we need to be in Europe in order to maintain the importance of London and the importance of that inward investment.
I turn to a further implication of not signing up for Maastricht, the influence on GATT. I agree with all those who say that this must be signed as soon as possible, but it is without question that we have been at the forefront in Europe in pressing for an early agreement to GATT. I do not believe that if we had not been within Europe we would have had the
702
influence that we have had, and I do not believe that the Community would be as close to signing as it is now.
Let there be no illusions about the choice that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister faced at Maastricht and the choice that is now before Parliament. The Government have never tried to present the treaty as perfect, just as the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and other treaty changes have their shortcomings. However, we believe, that the treaty on offer at Maastricht was the best possible deal for Britain. The choice we face goes wider than simply whether or not to accept the Maastricht Treaty—it affects the whole future of our relations with Europe and our standing in the world.
Only with the treaty ratified can the Community turn to the next chapter in its development, a chapter which will be dominated by enlargement negotiations with the EFTA countries and deepening relations with Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. These are objectives which have long been UK priorities. They are now the Community's priorities. We are shaping the debate, at the centre of the argument. These are issues which could lead to fundamental changes in the structure of the Community, fundamental changes in the politics and the future stability of Europe. This Bill opens the way to that future and the UK's rightful place within it. I commend it to the House.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he will accept my apologies, but as regards what he said about monetary union, I missed or misunderstood somehow whether or not Her Majesty's Government are in favour of the creation of a single currency for the other members of the Community. He seemed to leave that unclear. Are we in favour of it in principle or not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, clearly that is a decision for the other member states. They do not have the benefit of the opt-out clause that we have. That only goes to proves how sensible my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in obtaining that opt-out clause. It might not suit us, but if they want to go down that road, that is a matter for them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned to tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before two o'clock.

  THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
  THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991: UNIT FINE SYSTEM
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991: UNIT FINE SYSTEM
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991: MAGISTRATES' DISCRETION
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991: MAGISTRATES' DISCRETION
  NATIONAL LOTTERY ETC. BILL: SOCIETY LOTTERIES
  NATIONAL LOTTERY ETC. BILL: SOCIETY LOTTERIES
  LOCAL JUSTICE: RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PAPER
  LOCAL JUSTICE: RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PAPER
  METABOLIC DISEASES: INFANT SCREENING
  METABOLIC DISEASES: INFANT SCREENING
  COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS: PAY NEGOTIATIONS
  COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS: PAY NEGOTIATIONS
  FIRST DEGREE COURSES: FIRST YEAR DROP-OUT RATE
  FIRST DEGREE COURSES: FIRST YEAR DROP-OUT RATE
  FIRST DEGREE COURSES: CLEARING PROCEDURES
  FIRST DEGREE COURSES: CLEARING PROCEDURES
  UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
  UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
  PLUTONIUM SHIPMENTS TO JAPAN
  PLUTONIUM SHIPMENTS TO JAPAN
  GRACE AND FAVOUR RESIDENCES
  GRACE AND FAVOUR RESIDENCES
  WEST AFRICA: EC BEEF EXPORTS
  WEST AFRICA: EC BEEF EXPORTS
  ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS SHEEP DIPS
  ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS SHEEP DIPS
  MYXOMATOSIS AND VIRAL HAEMORRHAGIC VACCINES
  MYXOMATOSIS AND VIRAL HAEMORRHAGIC VACCINES
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: TAX LIABILITY
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: TAX LIABILITY
  INCOME TAX: HIGHEST RATE
  INCOME TAX: HIGHEST RATE
  EC BANKNOTES AND COINAGE
  EC BANKNOTES AND COINAGE
  M.25 MOTORWAY: CHARGING PROPOSAL
  M.25 MOTORWAY: CHARGING PROPOSAL
  DECOMMISSIONED NUCLEAR SUBMARINES: STORAGE LOCATION
  DECOMMISSIONED NUCLEAR SUBMARINES: STORAGE LOCATION
  COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION: MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
  COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION: MANAGEMENT STATEMENT