Sitting of 22 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
    UNIBANK BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second, time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Helicopter Carrier
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the defence gains from the recent award of the contract for a helicopter carrier for the Royal Navy.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The new helicopter carrier will significantly enhance the Royal Navy's amphibious capabilities. It will give an amphibious task force the helicopter support needed to deploy or reinforce troops quickly.
    Mr. Robinson: The decision to award the contract is widely welcomed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new helicopter platform ship will serve as a pad for the new EH101 helicopter when it comes into service? Will he encourage the Royal Air Force to follow the lead of the Royal Navy and place orders for the helicopter which will do so much to safeguard jobs in the defence industry in the south-west?
    Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the important order which will indeed enhance our defence capabilities for many years to come. What helicopters will fly from it must depend on the outcome of current studies into the support helicopter requirements. However, I am well aware of my hon. Friend's and many others' strong support and enthusiasm for the EH101. I very much hope that, if the price is right, it may turn out to be our choice, just as the Merlin version was our choice for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Hutton: I welcome the Government's decision to place a contract for the new helicopter carrier with Vickers Shipbuilders and. Engineering Ltd. in my constituency, but will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that, if the Royal Navy is to have a fully effective and operational
    154
    amphibious capability, the Government will need to place further orders for the replacement for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid? When will those orders be placed?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If we are to have a proper amphibious warfare capability, we shall need additional amphibious shipping to go with the LPH in the longer term. I know that his constituents will be delighted that the LPH order has gone to VSEL in his constituency. As for the landing platform dock replacements, I can tell him that project definition studies into the replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid are being undertaken now. The timing of an order will be subject to the successful outcome of the project definition phase and the subsequent tender process.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries which possess nuclear weapons capable of being delivered to targets in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Such weapons are possessed by Russia, China, France and the United States. Some weapons are also possessed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, but these are controlled by the Commonwealth of Indpendent States.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the list is growing ever longer, with the Ukraine selling missiles to whoever is prepared to pay for them? Does not that mean that this country's safety is threatened even more? Does he agree it is important that the Walworth road is protected because we want our children and grandchildren not only to read about the demise of socialism in libraries and schools but to be able to go down the Walworth road to see for themselves where the last of the Bolsheviks lived and worked? Does he agree that the Walworth road should be a nuclear-free zone because the safety of that lot is in our interests?
    Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that all tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from the Ukraine and, as I said, strategic weapons are not under its control. I am sure you will agree, Madam Speaker, that it is just possible that if we had four seagoing versions of my hon. Friend, we would probably need no other equipment. However, in the absence of three clones of my hon. Friend, I think we perhaps need to maintain our minimum deterrent.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister now list all the countries in the world that can be hit by nuclear weapons? Does he accept that, if Britain argues that nuclear deterrence is essential for our defence, so can the Government of every other country in the world? Is not the logic of the Government's position that the entire world should now embark on a policy of nuclear expansion, because there is no other defence against countries that have nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Hanley: Updating our minimum deterrent is entirely consistent with our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Furthermore, I would say that we have adhered closely to our responsibilities. After all, in recent years, the United Kingdom has cut its RAF nuclear

    155
    strike squadrons from 11 to eight; we have given up nuclear artillery and Lance missile roles; we have announced a reduction of more than half in the WE177 bomb stockpile; and on 15 June last year, we announced the elimination of our maritime tactical nuclear weapon capability—in that area, we have felt able to go further than other nuclear powers. I believe that our record is good, but, for the safety of the world, we need to maintain our minimum nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need a sub-strategic nuclear weapon? Does he not believe that for a deterrent to be effective, people such as Saddam Hussein have to believe that, if they use nuclear weapons, we have something with which to strike back?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have been examining a range of options for providing the United Kingdom's long-term sub-strategic capability, and we expect to be in a position to make our intentions clear in the near future.
    Dr. David Clark: Does not the Minister accept that one of the surest ways to reduce the threat of any nuclear attack on Britain is to limit the number of countries that possess nuclear weapons by ensuring that the nonproliferation treaty is renewed? The Secretary of State acknowledged to me in a letter dated 14 June that various signatories to the non-proliferation treaty see a direct link between its renewal and progress on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Bearing that in mind, will Britain now join France, Russia and the United States in supporting a moratorium on nuclear testing?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman well knows why we believe that nuclear testing is possibly desirable: it maintains both our credibility and the safety of our nuclear stockpile. The matter is being discussed in the United States, perhaps at this very moment, and I believe that the President knows our views.
    I have already said that we are fully signed up to the long-term aims of the non-proliferation treaty, and we have made great progress ourselves. We are therefore ensuring that our position of strength helps to encourage other countries not to possess nuclear weapons, and we are taking great pains to ensure that countries do not possess nuclear weapons of any sort.

    Spending Levels
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received over the past decade regarding defence spending levels.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Over the past decade, my Department has received a number of representations on defence spending levels from hon. Members and from members of the public.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the fact that many of those who, at the height of the cold war, urged us to abandon nuclear weapons as immoral and to slash defence spending have apparently come to the conclusion, now that the cold war is over, that we need nuclear weapons after all, that we must save every regiment and even bomb Serbia, and bearing in mind the fact that the leading politician who opposed Trident as militarily unacceptable
    156
    is now lobbying for Trident refit work in his constituency, does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that that represents a genuine change of heart, or is it the usual unholy mixture of hyprocisy, opportunism, and pork-barrel politics?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly one of the lasting mysteries about the Opposition that they were unable to support our nuclear deterrent during the cold war, but that they claim that Trident will be safe in their hands now, when the Soviet Union no longer exists.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Secretary of State is currently spending money completing three type 23 frigates at Swan Hunter on Tyneside. Will he now give an assurance that those three frigates will be finished on Tyneside by the work force at Swan Hunter, under the control of the existing management?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have said that we very much hope that it will be possible to complete the frigates at Swan Hunter. I am cautiously optimistic that that will indeed prove possible, but the discussions that are taking place are not yet complete.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that all those people working in the defence industries and in our armed forces should be glad that the Conservative party won the election last year and not either of the rabbles opposite—one of which proposes a cut in spending of 6 per cent. and the other a cut of 50 per cent? Will he assure the many MOD and armed forces personnel working in North Yorkshire that, so long as this Government remain in power, our commitment to a strong defence of Britain remains totally in place?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that both the Labour party and the Liberal party are committed, by their party conferences, to massive reductions in defence expenditure. Indeed, I understand that the Liberal party is committed to reducing the size of our Army from 160,000 to approximately 70,000. That compares rather unfavourably with the view of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who seeks to oppose any amalgamations during the current exercise.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding British forces in former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Rifkind: British forces continue to make an important contribution to the United Nations humanitarian relief effort in Bosnia, having successfully escorted over 42,000 tonnes of aid since operations began. The events of recent weeks in central Bosnia have demonstrated the dangerous conditions under which our troops are working, and, as I am sure the House will agree, they have reacted to circumstances with outstanding professionalism.
    Mr. Winnick: I agree with the' latter part of the Secretary of State's response: there is undoubtedly much admiration in the House and in the country for the way in which British forces have operated in the former Yugoslavia.

    157
    However, would there not be a case for the rules of. engagement to be changed—obviously that would have to be done by the Security Council—so that allied troops could assist civilians fleeing terror and destruction? Is it not the case—this is no reflection on the Secretary of State—that, to a large extent, even humanitarian relief often depends on Serbian and Croatian commanders, who are carrying out what can only be described as a murderous pogrom against the Muslim population in Bosnia?
    Mr. Rifkind: We do not believe that the current rules of engagement need to be changed to assist the United Nations in its humanitarian efforts. Clearly, if a new mandate were to be considered for United Nations personnel, that would open up the question whether the rules of engagement were appropriate. However. it is crucial to emphasise that we do not consider it sensible or desirable that the United Nations should be asked to adopt a combat role in Bosnia. United Nations personnel are doing a superb job, saving many tens of thousands of lives at present. That in itself is justification for their presence.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend confident that the rules of engagement are sufficient to protect the safe havens which the United Nations has declared should be safe havens? Are they truly safe, or can they he made truly safe, for the civilian population?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Secretary-General is at present seeking to put together a number of forces from various contributors who would be present within the safe havens. The United Kingdom has said that its contribution will be to continue to help deal with the situation in the Vitez area in central Bosnia, where there is tremendous tension between Croats and Muslims. We believe that the current rules of engagement are suitable for the task that British forces have been asked to do.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State recall that, on 14 January, when announcing the deployment of our naval task force in the Adriatic, he said that his overriding concern was for the safety of our forces, and added:—
    "the provision of artillery in particular"—
    in particular—
    "will enable us to respond to attacks"?—[Offcial Report, 14 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1058.]
    Will he now confirm that at, the very time when our troops in Bosnia are, in the Secretary of State's words, "facing the greatest risk", he has withdrawn the RFA Argus, which is loaded with the same artillery? Does he accept that his meek surrender to Treasury penny-pinching could well put our troops in Bosnia at risk?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman gets sillier as every day passes. As the decision to transfer the artillery back to the United Kingdom was taken on the advice of the Chief of the General Staff and not at the request of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he might have chosen to check his facts before making such a fool of himself.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned. Friend agree that it is not only the soldiers escorting the convoys that come under shellfire and sniping but also the civilian truck drivers, who are sent out to Bosnia by the Crown Agents based in my constituency? Four truck drivers have now been awarded the MBE in the Queen's
    158
    birthday honours. Would my right hon. and learned Friend extend to them the same tributes that we have extended to our soldiers?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the remarkable contribution that has been made not only by uniformed personnel but by many thousands of civilians—including many British citizens—who have done a superb job, often in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances, to provide food, medical aid and other forms of assistance to people who so desperately need them.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made any further review of Britain's defence commitments in the light of Britain's peacekeeping role in former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Rifkind: Britain's armed forces have a number of overseas commitments, which they are well placed to meet. We keep such commitments, and the forces required to meet them, under review.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the excellent role played by Britain's superb forces in the former Yugoslavia shows that Britain's future military role will increasingly be as part of a United Nations peacekeeping or even peacemaking force? In view of that, is it not time that the Government recognised that, in future, there will be little demand from the United Nations peacekeepers for crippling expensive submarines and nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman would be very unwise to believe that Britain's future military requirements will be limited to some form of gendarmerie role on behalf of the United Nations. Of course our contribution to that role is important, but we must retain the capacity for high-intensity conflict, because, as we have seen twice in the past 12 years, there could be attacks on British interests which require a response not only with manpower but with sophisticated equipment. Submarines have played a very viable role for the United Kingdom over the years.
    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, during the past two years, Britain's slefence commitments have increased, not decreased, and that there is a good argument for a general review of Britain's defence commitments around the world to ensure a direct match of commitments and resources?
    Mr. Rifkind: I accept the principle that my hon. Friend has enunciated, but I do not accept his description of what has happened over the past three years. The single biggest change over that period has been the reduction of our forces in Germany from 60,000 to about 30,000. That is a far greater reduction in our commitment than any relatively modest contribution we have made in Bosnia, Cambodia and one or two other territories elsewhere.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of our experience in Bosnia, is there not a case for puttinǵ the United Nations interventionist role on a formal footing, with financial backing, in properly established headquarters? If so, who would be prepared to pay, given that the major contributing nations are in an adverse financial position?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to. proper military headquarters in New York to ensure that the United Nations can properly co-ordinate and plan the substantially increased number of military operations for which it is responsible, he makes an important point. The large increase in United Nations activities means that the small staff at present responsible for those matters find it almost impossible to carry out their responsibilities in a proper and coherent fashion.

    Bosnia (Ambush)
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in equipping AFVs deployed in Bosnia with state-of-the-art surveillance systems to counter threats of ambush; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hanley: The armoured vehicles deployed in Bosnia are already fitted with sophisticated surveillance systems, but we keep the situation under review to ensure that the personnel deployed have the equipment most appropriate to their role and environmental conditions.
    Mr. Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware that Pilkington Optronics in my constituency designed and fitted the thermal observation and gunnery sight—TOGS—to the Chieftain and Challenger tanks, which performed so well in the Gulf war? Is he further aware that Pilkington has offered to fit the TOGS system to the Scimitar AFV, which is currently deployed in Bosnia, at a very reasonable price?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; any saving is helpful. The TOGS proposal is one of the ideas considered as part of the life-extension programme for tracked combat reconnaissance vehicles. We already have very sophisticated equipment in them, including thermal image sights, which can be fitted on top of the commander's sight. Troops are also issued with image intensifying night vision goggles. The Scimitar family of vehicles will be upgraded in due course.

    Trident Refit
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what examination he has made of the decision-taking process on the Trident refitting contract with a view to improving the consistency and orderliness of such processes.
    Mr. Rifkind: The issues involved are complex, and involve significant sums of public money. A wide range of factors bear on the issues, and I am satisfied that the assessment is being properly conducted.
    Mr. Tyler: Is that not the most extraordinarily complacent reply? It is 13 months since the bids had to be in from the two yards. Before Christmas, the Minister of State told me from the Dispatch Box that the decision would be out in a matter of days, perhaps weeks. The loyal work forces at Rosyth and Devonport have waited patiently for months. They are on tenterhooks—their livelihoods are at stake and their families do not know what will happen. The whole economy of that area of Scotland and the south-west of England has been waiting for this hide-and-seek game to end.
    Mr. Rifkind: I understand the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I make no apology for the time that it is
    160
    taking to reach the proper conclusion. That time has already resulted in savings to the taxpayer and the Royal Navy that are likely to be in excess of £250 million, compared to what the original cost of the nuclear refitting was expected to be. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Royal Navy will benefit substantially from those savings, so it is right and proper that we should address those matters in that way.
    Mr. Streeter: As someone who has always supported Trident, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that the delay in awarding the contract is seriously undermining the morale of my constituents, and holding back the recovery that would otherwise be bursting forth in the south-west? Is he aware of what the people of Rosyth and Plymouth are going through while we await the decision? When will it be made?
    Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend. He will appreciate that the two companies involved—one in Plymouth and one in Rosyth—have, over the past six months, sent several refinements of their proposals, which inevitably have required time for consideration. Ministers are now considering the conclusions that should be reached, and I hope that an announcement can be made in the near future. It is important that the matters are properly addressed. I am anxious, as is my hon. Friend, to bring the uncertainty to an end.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State must realise that it is now over four months since he announced in a written answer that he planned to continue with two dockyards, but without saying how that would be achieved. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) rightly said, that is causing dismay and increasing division between Scotland and the south-west of England.
    Can the Secretary of State at least say, first, that he will continue a submarine refitting capability at both yards and, secondly, that the yard that does not get the Trident refit will get at least 10 years' guarantee of submarine and surface refitting? It is in the strategic and employment interests of the United Kingdom to keep both yards fully operational.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman shares our desire to see a decision on this matter, which hopefully will be possible. I simply do not believe that it is. possible to continue nuclear submarine refitting at both yards. The cost of the Trident work is so substantial that the expenditure required to provide a nuclear submarine refitting capability at both yards would be a gross waste of public funds, and I cannot endorse the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Gallie: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the wisdom of the last four Conservative Secretaries of State for Defence, who assured Rosyth's future based on the successful achievements in the refitting and servicing of Britain's nuclear deterrent fleet?
    Mr. Rifkind: Both Rosyth's and Devonport's future are assured, because some time ago we said that, in the interests of ensuring competition and therefore the best benefit to the taxpayer, we proposed to continue with two royal dockyards. I know that that will give great pleasure not only to my hon. Friend but to those who are anxious

    161
    to ensure that the taxpayer and the Royal Navy get the. most competitive bids not only for its submarine work but for its surface ship work.

    Eurofighter
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the development stage of the Eurofighter project to be completed.
    Mr. Aitken: The development stage of Eurofighter 2000 will largely be completed by 1995, when the production stage is due to begin. However, as is usual with new aircraft, some development activity will continue into the early years of production. It is expected that the final phase of the development stage will be completed in 2001.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Minister aware of the consternation that was caused in the industry when he announced the delays in the programme on 25 February? Will he give the House an explanation of the escalation of the costs that was announced then? How much of that escalation was caused by his Department's late changes to the specification?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair and churlish. The real increase in development costs since we committed ourselves to this phase in 1988 is a little more than 10 per cent. For the project as a whole, it is a little less than 10 per cent. Production costs are all hypothetical at this stage, but a 10 per cent. increase in a project of this complexity and magnitude, although not welcome, is by no means unusual. It is within the normal tolerances. As for the hon. Gentleman's points about delays, those are matters caused by some of the industrial decisions—not Government decisions. The Government could not have done more to support the project whole-heartedly and effectively.
    Mr. Martlew: Is not it a fact that 10 per cent. represents £250 million, which will have to come from somewhere else in the defence estimates? Yesterday, the Minister gave us an assurance that the Eurofighter would make its test flight this year. We welcome that. But he was vague on how the work would be shared out between the countries. It looks as if the Royal Air Force will place orders for 50 per cent. of the production. Does that mean that 50 per cent. of the work will be carried out in United Kingdom factories?
    Mr. Aitken: On the work-share point, the hon. Gentleman's questions are premature at this stage, because no decisions have yet been reached between the four partners on precisely which numbers will be used in the production phase. Development work-shares were agreed in 1988 and ours was 33 per cent. There is no suggestion that those should change, but, ultimately, they will depend on the final orders placed by each of the partners.

    RAF Training Bases
    Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in his Department's review of RAF training bases.
    Mr. Hanley: The RAF's flying training study is progressing satisfactorily. We are continuing to collate and assess the detailed information gathered from the seven flying training stations under study, and the study team expects to report by the end of the year as planned.
    Mr. Harvey: Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety that the review is causing in north Devon, where RAF Chivenor is a warmly regarded feature of the local community on which businesses, jobs, schools and other services are heavily dependent? Does he agree that RAF Chivenor is uniquely well suited to provide RAF training on account of its favourable geography, weather patterns and topography? Would it not be the economics of the madhouse to close a base at which £12 million has been spent on modernisation and which, because of its location, is not attractive for alternative commercial uses? On account of its technologically modern state, it could be maintained for years to come at minimal expense.
    Mr. Hanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of those factors and, indeed, have discussed the matter with my predecessor. We are in the middle of the study. There is still a great deal of collation of information to come. But all seven of the flying training stations involved in the study are being assessed absolutely equally, taking into account a wide range of factors, including those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, of course, the main factors will be operations, tasking, facilities, costs, manning and meeting the needs of our Royal Air force for the future.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In his statement last Thursday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that there were significant changes to be implemented in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Naval Reserve. However, in that statement he made no observations about the future of the Maritime Headquarters Unit. No. I Maritime Headquarters Unit is located in my constituency at RAF Northolt and trains there. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the MHU and Royal Auxiliary Air Force have an assured and valued future?
    Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As far as I am aware, we have no current plans to change the role of the facilities to which he refers.
    Mr. Hardy: As the question did not specify purely flying bases, may I ask the Minister to ensure that there is no further contraction of the RAF training capacity until the Government have ensured that contractors, especially those engaged in technological activity, make proper provision for the maintenance of adequate training so that the service is properly provided for in the future? Will he accept that to do otherwise would be to act in the most short-sighted manner, and we have seen quite enough of that in recent years?
    Mr. Hanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all factors are being taken into account, and I cannot add to that at this stage. The review is taking time because it is so comprehensive and, as I say, all factors are being taken into account. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend consider carefully, in addition to the advantages that the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) mentioned, the role that RAF Chivenor plays in very adverse, including snowy, winter conditions on Exmoor in my constituency rescuing sick people and animals? What implications, if any, will the review have for low-flying training, because

    163
    my hon. Friend will be aware from the correspondence files in his Department that that has also caused certain problems?
    Mr. Hanley: I am aware of those matters and there is no doubt that RAF Chivenor provides an excellent service. I am also aware, I hasten to add, of a famous thing called the Chivenor gap, of which I had not heard previously but find fascinating. I am looking forward to studying that phenomenon. In other words, everything is being considered and we shall reach a result on the review by the end of the year.

    NATO Nuclear Doctrine
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of NATO; and if he proposes to discuss with him NATO's nuclear doctrine.
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect to meet the NATO Secretary-General at a regular meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in the autumn. As is usual on these occasions, a.wide range of Alliance issues will be discussed.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that it may be time, in the interests of economy and security, to seek greater co-operation between ourselves, the French and the United States? Would it not be consistent with the doctrine of minimum nuclear deterrence to seek to achieve operational arrangements which, while providing a constant nuclear capability for NATO, may be provided at a lower level than at present?
    Mr. Rifkind: There are many indications that the French Government are interested in closer dialogue with the United Kingdom on nuclear and other matters of mutual interest. It is right and proper that all the nuclear countries of the NATO alliance—the United States, France and ourselves—should co-operate to the maximum extent possible, and I believe that in the post-cold war situation, Paris is showing more interest in doing that than has perhaps been the case for a number of years.
    Mr. Dickens: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Secretary-General of the United Nations, will he remind him of the excellent news today that Vickers has won more orders for the excellent Challenger tank, which is very good news indeed? Are we not the inventors of the world, with television having been born out of radar, a British design, and the jet engine, also a British design, having made the world smaller? Let us tell the world that when you buy British, you buy the best.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct, and he might have added that our Prime Minister signed that deal with the Sultan of Oman on his visit. That was a great achievement for British sales and British industry.

    Infantry Regiments (Manpower)
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the manpower of infantry regiments.
    Mr. Hanley: We continue to keep Army manpower under review. While we will make adjustments if necessary
    164
    —as we did with the measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 3 February—we have no current plans for further changes.
    Mr. Clarke: May I belatedly congratulate the Minister on his appointment? This is the first opportunity that I have had to do that. He said in yesterday's debate that the time between emergency tours by the Army was 19 months. His statement to that effect appears at column 111 of the Official Report. That is not the figure given to me by members of the infantry battalions and others to whom I have spoken. Will he reconsider the matter, remembering that it has a great effect on the families and personnel involved?
    Is the Minister aware of a further problem concerning in-service training because of a shortage of manpower? It seems that in-service training and similar activities are being delayed, so will he conduct an in-depth study into that matter, too?
    Mr. Hanley: I thank the hon. Gentleman warmly for his kind remarks. I confirm the figures that I gave last night in the debate. On the basis of current emergency tour commitments, the average emergency tour intervals for infantry are likely to meet the target of 24 months by 1995. The average emergency tour interval for the current year is 19 months. I stress that that is an average figure—some forces are able to be deployed while some are not; some are reorganising and re-roling, so are not available for use. We aim to reach the target of 24 months soon. With the withdrawal from Belize and the withdrawal of two battalions from Berlin, there will be more forces available for us.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: I, too, belatedly congratulate my hon. Friend. Is he aware that there is concern among those who take a genuine interest in such matters that manpower constraints are making it difficult for Britain to meet its international obligations? Will my hon. Friend quietly consider in the weeks ahead rescinding the decision to merge my old regiment, the Gordon Highlanders with the Queen's Own Highlanders and, at a stroke, find a cost-effective solution to those constraints, as well as providing a future for two of the finest infantry regiments of the British Army?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Army is large enough to keep all its commitments following the reduction in threat due to the change in the strategic environment. As we often say, the post-"Options" Army will be smaller but fully manned, well equipped and properly supported. I believe that the House will be proud of the commitments that we shall continue to carry out throughout the world. However, those commitments must be balanced—we cannot, and should not, do everything. We should not put our men and women at unnecessary risk. I have looked at the issue in the past few weeks and believe that Scottish regiments were not treated unfairly in the restructuring process. It was not possible to exempt the Scottish regiments from the inescapable need for certain cuts. I realise that many people with Scottish regimental associations have strong feelings about the restructuring, but equal pain was felt by all regiments—whether Scottish, British, Welsh or Irish.
    Dr. Reid: As the Minister embarks on his new portfolio, I plead with him that, if he will not take my advice, he should take the advice expressed. not only by my hon.

    165
    Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), but the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and undertake a full defence review specifically to deal with the issues raised about the infantry.
    The Minister may wish to ask his civil servants about the following issue. Since the beginning of the operation called "Options for Change", the Government have made a net increase in the number of battalion tasks of 10—an extra two in Northern Ireland, plus one in Bosnia, minus one in Belize, times five—but they have increased the number of infantry battalions by only two. Is it not clear to the Minister, as it is to the Opposition, that the tasks of the infantry cannot be increased by 10 and the numbers by two without creating a mismatch between resources and commitments? As he embarks on his new ministerial position, will the Minister do what his Front-Bench predecessors at the Ministry of Defence refused to do: carry out a genuine review so that we do not place burdens on our soldiers and service men which they cannot meet because they lack resources?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is a friendly soul and I shall willingly take advice from him, except on this matter—for the simple reason that there is no need for a full defence review. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be sitting on the edge of his seat waiting for the White Paper to be published in the next few weeks. I think that even he will be so impressed with that document that he will feel that the need for the review has gone out of the window. We keep Army manpower closely under review—the increase in tasks for existing manpower shows the efficiency and effectiveness of our armed forces.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that one third of all recruits to the armed forces are youngsters under the age of 18? Given the increasing complexity of modern warfare, is it any longer sensible to take on young people with only minimum basic education? Should we not in future consider recruiting only youngsters over the age of 18, thereby avoiding the current problem of sending them to difficult areas—as with, for example, those in my local regiment, the Staffordshires, serving in Bosnia?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right to say that some 35 per cent. of Army recruits are under the age of 18. It would put the Army under great stress if we were to restrict recruitment to those over the age of 18; we would lose many talented people to other walks of life. Those under the age of 18 should, with their parents' permission, be given the opportunity to serve in the British forces, one of the best jobs in the world.
    With regard to the deployment of young people in the theatres of war, many of those who are under the age of 18 have trained within formed units and if they were not allowed to go with their units, it would not only break up that unit but would be a great disappointment to the young people concerned. However, we shall keep the matter under review.

    Future Frigate Project
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the future frigate project.
    Mr. Aitken: Negotiations with France and Italy on the future frigate project are proceeding satisfactorily. I am pleased to announce plans to sign a memorandum of
    166
    understanding establishing the joint project office in London this summer, subject to agreement being reached on the detailed arrangements for the development of the ship and its weapon systems.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that there should be more urgency about the project, which is the most important European project that we have for anti-air and anti-missile defence for our naval forces which need that protective condom above them in the sky? Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to get the design work for that important project into the work-starved design teams of British shipyards, such as those of Swan Hunter on the Tyne, at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. Aitken: I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in his colourful metaphors, but I agree that this is an important project. I am delighted to hear such robust sentiments from a member of the party which, at its conference, votes for swingeing cuts in defence. However, the hon. Gentleman should regard it as good news that the joint project office is to open later this summer.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been attending a European Council meeting in Copenhagen.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Leader of the House explain why many people on invalidity benefit who have been assisting the very sick, poor and disabled and withdrawing from that voluntary work because of the fear that the Government will attack their benefits? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most vulnerable in our society should not be made to pay for the failure of the Government's economic policy?
    Mr. Newton: I know of no basis for the fear that the right hon. Gentleman describes. When I was Secretary of State for Social Security we went to some lengths-to try to prevent that difficulty arising and we improved the therapeutic earnings rule, with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Social Security will be concerned to ensure that people on invalidity benefit who can do voluntary work while nevertheless fulfilling the legal requirements of the benefit are able and encouraged to do so.
    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate my constituents and all employees of the Jaguar car company, in particular the highly skilled development engineers who so outperformed their foreign counterparts that they won the Le Mans 24-hour, race? Will my right hon. Friend go further and tell people at large that there has been an improvement out of all recognition at Rover, Jaguar and all the other British car assemblers, and that there is now little excuse for buying a foreign car?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with all my hon. Friend's points and I join him in paying tribute to Jaguar's achievement and the achievement of many other British car manufacturers in recent months in bringing about the large increase in car production which, had it gone the other way, we would have been hearing much about from the Opposition; we hear nothing when it goes up. With the British car market now growing, while continental markets are plunging into recession, our industry has revitalised itself and is set to win.
    Mr. John Smith: In view of the increasing and widespread public concern about large financial donations—[Interruption.]—about large financial donations from foreign sources to the Conservative party, will the Government now introduce legislation to make such foreign donations illegal?
    Mr. Newton: On the assumption that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is riding on the back of the absurd story in The Guardian today, perhaps I should tell him that, within the past hour or so, the Saudi ambassador to the United States of America. whose name was mentioned in that story, has issued a statement to the effect that all the allegations in the article are untrue and totally without foundation, that the meeting that is referred to did not take place, and that neither he nor anyone else connected with the Saudi Arabian Government has made donations to the Conservative party or been asked for such donations. Indeed, he is taking legal advice about obtaining a full retraction. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Leader of the House understand that the Conservative party's difficulties arise because the party will not declare the sums that it receives from other people? As we are seeing what money the Conservative party has received, may I take this opportunity to ask whether it received funds from Mr. John Latsis and Mr. Li Ka-Shing?
    Mr. Newton: In the right hon. and learned Gentleman's immortal words, he has put something else aside, as I understand it. [Interruption.] Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what I shall do: I shall start listening to his lectures on this subject when he tells me that he will bring to an end the position in the Labour party in which votes at party conferences can be bought, in which votes in the selection of candidates can be bought, and in which votes even in his election as leader of the party can be bought. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House is in a very bad mood. [Interruption.] Order—all of you.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Leader of the House understand—[interruption.] I know that the Conservative party wants to drown this issue out, but it will not succeed. Does not the Leader of the House understand that the public will have noticed that there has been no denial that Mr. John Latsis, Greek millionaire and supporter of the fascist military junta in Greece, gave money to the Conservative party? Does not he understand the simple and clear principle that it is wrong, and should be illegal, for a British political party to accept large sums of money from people who are not British citizens, do not live here,
    168
    do not vote here, and are not part of our democracy? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that simple point?
    Mr. Newton: What I understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and believe—[interruption.]—to be a scandal is that a major financer of the Labour party can utter phrases like "No say, no pay." [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I expect better behaviour, especially from the Front Benches.
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's dealings with the trade unions makes "Jurassic Park" look like a tea party.
    Mrs. Browning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the coming of the summer solstice, the west country is bracing itself for an invasion of new age travellers? Will he ensure that the Conservative party puts on the statute book whatever measures are necessary to ensure that those who opt for an alternative life style do so at their own expense, and not at the expense of the hard-working taxpayer?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know of the plans that the Government have set out, and of our determination to implement them. She may be relieved to note that, at present, most of the new age travellers seem to be on the Opposition Benches.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Seamus Mallon. [Interruption.] lithe House were a little quieter, hon. Members could hear when I called them.
    Mr. Mallon: Notwithstanding the importance of Volvo cars and inscribed watches, does the Leader of the House agree that the real moral test of any Government is their care for those in the dawn of life—the young; those in the twilight of life—the aged; and those in the shadows of life—the sick, the poor and the handicapped? Given the Government's predeliction for testing, would the right hon. Gentleman care to subject them to that test? Does he believe that it will show the abysmal failure that most people in the country perceive?
    Mr. Newton: Given the improvements that have been made in the health service, in benefits for disabled people and in educational opportunities for young people, I think that the hon. Gentleman has a nerve to ask that question.
    Mr. Pickles: Has my right hon. Friend's busy schedule allowed him an opportunity to consider the announcement—
    Mr. Skinner: The Leader of the House is on crack. Get another bed ready.
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Pickles: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's recent announcement about trials of a side-handled baton for police officers? Does he agree that if the trials are successful, those who daily risk their lives on our streets will deserve our support? If the equipment proves good for the police, will the Government supply it?
    Mr. Newton: I agree very strongly. As has been all too evident on some recent occasions, we ask our police to risk

    169
    their lives for us every day, and they deserve the protection with which we can provide them. There is no doubt that the standard truncheon does not meet all the needs of modern times, and it is well known to us that police officers have been pressing for more effective alternatives. I know that they, like my hon. Friend, will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that a scientific evaluation of the expandable side-handled baton will be undertaken to test its suitability for trials on the streets.
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Vaz: During his busy day, has the Lord President of the Council had an opportunity to purchase an early retirement present for the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)? [Interruption.] If so, will he reveal the words that he has had inscribed on the back of it?
    Mr. Newton: I am afraid that, because of the noise—I am not sure from which side of the House it came—I did not hear the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Given the reaction, however, I doubt whether I need bother to ask him to repeat it. As for the first part, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his views on the matter clear some weeks ago, and I see no reason to depart from them this afternoon.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the successful management buy-out at Leyland DAF demonstrates that the Government—and, in particular, our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—were quite right to back a private solution to what was a problem? Does it not also illustrate good, common-sense Conservative policies, as opposed to socialist dogma?
    Mr. Newton: Yes. The management buy-outs, first of the vans business in Birmingham and now of the truck business at Leyland, are very good news. They show what can be achieved by working for sound commercial
    170
    solutions, rather than the preferred solution of Labour Members—offering open-ended subsidies. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House, whatever their political views, wish the management buy-out people well for the future success of those companies.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: I half expected to receive a note this morning from the Leader of the House saying that he would link questions 2 and 3. I assume that before he did that, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would also have to be in the frame.
    Will the Leader of the House accept that although all hon. Members welcome the recent reduction in the unemployment figures, that should not hide from us the very high figures associated with structural unemployment in this country? Does he further agree that that high level of structural unemployment represents—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way"]—represents a reservoir of economic resources that this country should be using? If he does agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] If he does agree, will he accept that the Government should be introducing an economic and industrial strategy to create jobs, not instigating a further attack on the residual welfare state?
    Mr. Newton: May I observe in passing that I am not aware of any practice of linking questions simply because the hon. Members asking them come from different bits of the same city?
    Somewhat to my surprise, I found myself agreeing with much of what the hon. Gentleman started with, although not with his conclusions. The Government's view is that the right way forward to tackle that important problem is to put in place the proper training schemes, which we believe we have done, and to create the conditions in which British industry can compete and sell its goods, as we manifestly have with the motor industry, which is very important in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country.

M25 (Widening)
3.30 pm
Ms Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any application from the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement about the future proposals for the widening of the M25? It seems that a decision may have been made in Cabinet based on information that the Conservative party may lose local election seats. It is time that we had a statement—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Lady's point of order. If a statement was to have been made today, it would have been on the annunciator for us all to see.

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(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONG KONG)
  That the draft British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Question agreed to.

Deregulation (No. 2)
3.32 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to control the activities of self-financing regulatory authorities.
Last month I sought leave to introduce a Bill to repeal unnecessary rules and regulations which restrict the competitiveness of British industry. Not surprisingly, the Labour party—the guardian angels of red tape—voted me down. Although driven by the same distaste for regulations, this time I seek leave to introduce a Bill to strike a blow at a far more sinister development which not only chokes profitability, but will lead ultimately to economic paralysis.
I am referring, of course, to the emergence of SEFRAs—self-financing regulatory agencies—the most prominent of which are the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. They make the quangos of the 1980s look like cuddly toys and have created an entirely new and additional layer of bureaucracy. For instance, the National Rivers Authority employs 7,500 staff—officials paid out of the public purse.
Let me explain what SEFRAs are and how they work. They were created with the best possible intention by the Government to improve the standards of health, safety, hygiene and pollution. Their detrimental impact cannot, for once, be blamed on Europe so much as on the over-zealousness of our officials in interpreting far beyond what Brussels intended. [Interruption.] I am having great difficulty, Madam Speaker, in hearing myself, so I do not know how my hon. Friends are managing.
Madam Speaker: I am terribly sorry. I can hear the hon. Gentleman very clearly and I am most interested in what he has to say. The rest of the House must come to order so that we may all hear.
Mr. Steen: I am delighted, Madam Speaker, that you are so interested in what I am saying.
The detrimental impact cannot, for once, be blamed on Europe so much as on the over-zealousness of our own officials in interpreting far beyond what Brussels ever intended. It makes one think that we may have a kind of bureaucratic fifth column in the heart of Westminster and Whitehall.
Most SEFRAs are rather modest and small to start with, often set up to carry out what local authorities used to do. But, once established, they grow fast, with a life force of their own. Many of the 2,945 statutory instruments passed in 1991 increased the powers of SEFRAs and their ability to issue licences, serve notices and demand compliance. Today they set targets, issue codes of practice and have become bodies which alone can grant legitimacy.
To do this, they employ armies of officials to make inspections, and only when satisfied will they grant licences. In fact, the modus vivendi of SEFRAs is to create rules and regulations, then employ officials to enforce them, charging the unfortunate victims for inspection and the issue of licences.

173
Some of the rules have helped us to clean up our act; others are simply an additional form of taxation, authorising individuals to do what they have done previously without charge. I will give some examples.
The National Rivers Authority insists on charging a householder in the Lake district a fee because she collects the water that runs down the side of a mountain. She puts the water in a tank and uses it in her house. She has never been charged before, but she is now charged for collecting the water, because the National Rivers Authority says that the water that she takes for her own use could be used by somebody else if she were not using it.
Then there is a case in Birmingham where a company has a building with a large corrugated roof on which water falls. The water runs off the roof, into a down pipe and into a stream. The National Rivers Authority charges the company for that because, it says, the water will erode the banks of the stream.
There is another example in my own constituency. The Harborn garage has a forecourt into which rain occasionally falls. The water goes down a little conduit under the road into a stream. Never before were the garage owners charged, but now they are charged £60 a year in case any of the water that falls on the forecourt should pollute the stream. It is shameful to charge a small garage in this way.
If individuals do not pay the charges that are heaped on them, they are pursued into the courts. Thousands of lives have been made miserable by the contagious nature of SEFRA-isation. Without licences, all organisations are trapped. They cannot trade, and they are branded as defaulters.
SEFRAs generate their own life force. They produce codes of practice, they enforce. Lifting standards is all very well if the organisations targeted have the resources to pay. During the recession most businesses have contracted, whereas SEFRAs have grown and grown, with more publicly paid staff, more rules, more regulations and more red tape.
The scrap metal industry is worth £3 billion a year and is pursuing environmental objectives, whereby it recycles 99 per cent. of the material that it handles, with 1 per cent. going to landfill. Its problem emanates from an emerging SEFRA—the waste regulation authority—which, in interpreting the Environmental Protection Act 1990, has muddled disposal of waste with recycling and forced on the scrap metal industry a raft of new regulations. Scrapyards have to pay £3,000 for a licence and £8,000 for an inspection. If they want to go out of business and surrender their licence, they have to pay another £3,000. Operators are quitting the business in droves. The result is that there will be more material to landfill and less will be recycled, resulting in additional pollution.
Apart from the ordinary household waste, all other waste is classified as controlled waste. To carry controlled waste, one must have a waste management licence: cost £95. To receive controlled waste, one needs another licence, a waste management licence, which costs £1,800. A
174
brewery that for years has been sending barley mash, a by-product of the brewing process, to a local farm for pig fodder has been told that it is recycling waste. Under the new regulations, the brewer must pay £95 to transport the stuff to the farm whereas the farmer with his pigs is viewed as a receiver of waste and has to pay £1,800 to receive it. The House can guess the result: the pigs go hungry. Instead of the waste being put to good use, it goes down the drain and, no doubt, helps to pollute the local river.
The most vivid example of creeping SEFRA-isation is encapsulated in the Spanish coffins saga. Unfortunately, 200 to 300 Britons die in Spain each year. Naturally, they are shipped home in Spanish coffins. However, due to European environmental directive 84/360, coffins can be burnt in a crematorium in this country only if they do not contain certain banned substances, such as certain glues. Although Spain is a signatory to the directive, surprise, surprise, it has not got around to enforcing it. That means that when the body arrives at a British crematorium, it is decoffined, as the parlance goes, from the Spanish coffin and then recoffined in a British-made coffin which, surprise, surprise, conforms to EC regulations. The coffin can then be burnt at the crematorium in full compliance with the directive and with the Environmental Protection Act. Britain, as ever, has done its bit in conforming to the regulations. However, when one asks those working at the crematorium what happens to the Spanish coffins, one is told that they are taken out the back and burnt on a bonfire.
That story was related to me by one of the most famous SEFRA-hunters of all time, Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph. It is such bureaucratic absurdities that have prompted me to seek leave to introduce a Bill to curb the creeping growth of SEFRAs and to rein back their power to introduce new and punitive regulations which are doing unnecessary and untold damage. That is apart from their appalling cost which has to be supported by the public purse and which, no doubt, contributes to the nation's £50 billion deficit. In short, our nation's enterprise is being inhibited. Any talk of lifting the burden will have a hollow ring unless something is done about the growth of SEFRAs. That is an important task and I ask the House to give me leave to do something about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Sir Michael Grylls, Sir Michael Neubert, Sir Anthony Durant, Sir Donald Thompson, Sir Keith Speed, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Bernard Jenkin and Mr. Roger Evans.

Deregulation (No. 2)
  DEREGULATION (No. 2)
  Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to empower the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to control the activities of self-financing regulatory authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]
Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  OPPOSITION DAY

    Political Parties (Funding)
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I seek the co-operation of the House in the hope that hon. Members will exercise voluntary restraint on the length of their speeches so that I may call all hon. Members who seek to be called.
    3.43 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
    That this House records it concern at the revelation that Asil Nadir and his companies made nine separate donations totalling £440,000 to the Conservative Party, which were undeclared in his company accounts and undeclared by the Conservative Party itself; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to endorse the Charter for Party Political Funding published by the Labour Party, in particular its demand that all political parties should publish fully audited accounts which disclose the source of all large donations and should refuse any donations from individuals who are neither British residents nor British nationals, any donations from foreign Governments or their agents and any donations from foreign companies not registered in Britain; and urges Her Majesty's Government to commence proceedings against any company which has made a political donation without declaration under the Companies Act 1985 and to invite all parties to submit their list of company donors to the Department of Trade and Industry to assist in ensuring compliance with company law.
    Britain today is a country in turmoil. Its people, perhaps slowly emerging from three long years of recession, feel anxious, beleaguered and insecure in their employment. All too many of them are insecure in the possession of their homes, conscious that there is no such thing as a safe job or a secure profession and increasingly fearful that there are all too few safe streets. The people of our country know that last April they were deceived and their confidence was betrayed by the Government and the party in which they placed their trust. As they gaze with dismay on the failures of the Government, their confidence is further eroded not only by the crass incompetence that they see the Government displaying but by the atmosphere of sleaze and the odour of corruption that they exude.
    For years, Conservative Governments have listened to no one. For years, they have used the power and patronage of government, at least in part, for party political advantage. This is a Government who have ceased to be able to tell the difference between the country's interests and their own—perhaps they have even ceased to believe that one can be distinguished from the other. For years they steadily placed, honoured and promoted those who saw things in the same narrow compass, until it would appear that there is no one to blow the whistle, no one to see the line of proprieties being crossed and no one to call a halt.
    There is a remarkable coincidence between the Government's placement of honours and donations to the Conservative party. The top ten corporate donors—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should say at the outset that I cannot force right hon. and hon. Members to listen, but what I can enforce is that whoever has the floor during this debate will be heard, and I hope that my cautionary remarks will be taken on board by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    Mrs. Beckett: Since 1979, the top 10 corporate donors to the Conservative party are as follows. United Biscuits has given more than £1 million and the honours received were one peerage and one knighthood; Hanson, £852,000, two peerages; Taylor Woodrow, £837,362, which is remarkable precision, one peerage and one knighthood. British and Commonwealth gave about £823,000—I shall leave out the odd figures—and received one peerage; P and O gave £727,000 and received one peerage and three knighthoods; Glaxo gave £600,000 and received two knighthoods; Trafalgar House gave £590,000 and received one peerage and one knighthood. There is a remarkable coincidence in the placement of honours and the placement of money—
    Mr. Gary Streeter: While the hon. Lady is giving us the figures, will she tell us how much the National and Local Government Officers Association spent on its misleading and grubby advertising campaign at the last general election?
    Mrs. Beckett: The money that NALGO spent on its election campaign—or in the campaign that it ran at the time—[Interruption ] I am quoting the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton (Mr. Streeter). It was his description, not mine. That money will be found declared in NALGO's accounts, which is more than can be said for many of the donations to the Conservative party.
    As I was saying, given the placement of people and the award of honours, there seems to be no one who will tell the Conservative party when to call a halt.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Beckett: Not for the moment.
    How else can we explain the Treasury's extraordinary decision to pay the then Chancellor of the Exchequer's legal fees in a private lawsuit? How else could the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—since promoted to be Secretary of State for the Environment—have thought it uncontroversial to allow a major company to pay to have his grounds improved? How else can we have reached the position where it is so widely believed as to be no longer a matter of much remark that, as the list that I quoted shows, honours given in the name of the Crown are regularly assumed to be purchased by financial contributions to the Conservative party? How else can it ever have been thought—
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not persist. The right hon. Lady is making it clear that for the moment she is not willing to give way.
    Mrs. Beckett: How else can it ever have been thought acceptable that the party of government publishes no proper, independently audited accounts, acknowledges that more than half its funds come from sources it is not

    177
    prepared to reveal and now admits under pressure that a large part of its campaign to secure the election was funded from overseas?
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the hon. Gentleman going to tell me where the money came from?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. Does the Labour party ever accept money with strings attached—yes or no?
    Mrs. Beckett: No, certainly not. [Interruption.] I have given the answer.
    How else can it be thought acceptable for the party of government to react as it did for months, with complete indifference, to the discovery that it was paid almost £500,000 in a fashion which breached company law by someone now a fugitive from British justice?
    In his evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs the other day, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—I am pleased to see him here today because I hope that he will answer the questions that he did not answer in that Committee—said:
    "I am not in the business of looking for ways round the laws of the country",
    as, of course,Mr. Nadir did in the donations he made to the Conservative party. However, perhaps I can draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that of the House to a story that appeared in Scotland a year or so ago.
    James Sneddon, the former director of the Conservative Board of Finance Scotland, who is no doubt well known to Conservative Members, said:
    "The attraction of the British United Industrialists arrangement"—
    this is for the payment of donations to an organisation outside the Conservative party—
    "is the exclusion of any disclosure of such a payment as a political donation in the statutory accounts of your company."
    That is the advice that the gentleman gave to those whom he hoped to seduce into giving money to the Conservative party through that indirect route, a way around the law. It was advice being given by the Conservative party about the way around the law.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will the right hon. Lady please tell me why a man who took £750,000 of Maxwell pensioners' money without any real work being done in exchange is given the honour of sitting on the Labour Front Bench in another place?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation about the circumstances in which someone was employed. I am not responsible for the employment of someone in a company in which, as I understand it, he did work for which he properly received remuneration. The hon. Gentleman cannot show that the Labour party received money illegally from companies, as we now know that the Conservative party has.
    Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Beckett: In a moment; I want to say a little more about British United Industrialists. I do not want to leave the point before I have made the matter clear.
    Advice was given by the Conservative party that it was a means of companies paying money to the party without
    178
    shareholders being told. I hear some Conservative Back Benchers saying that the organisation does not exist. I understand that it may have been wound up but, for many years, Conservative Members asserted that donations made in that way were nothing to do with them. Indeed, in a debate in another place not so very long ago—in 1989, I believe—the then treasurer of the Conservative party implied, and may even have stated, that such an organisation was not a means of channelling money into the Conservative party.
    Mr. Burns rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: Just a moment; I am about to give the hon. Gentleman some information that I know he wants.
    Despite the denial by the Conservative party in the House of Lords and for many years outside, when talking of indirect means the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said:
    "British United Industrialists has been mentioned—everyone understands the role of the recipient and realises that a large proportion of the funds paid to it are passed to the Conservative party. There is complete openness and accountability."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 May 1989; c. 7.]
    Conservative Members may say that that organisation did not exist, but it did, and it was a means of channelling money to the Conservative party.
    Mr. Burns rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: I shall say a little more about breaches of the law rather than about the implications.
    Other breaches of the law occur among those who support and give money to the Conservative party.
    Mr. David Shaw rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: The Financial Times revealed—
    Mr. Shaw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his intervention. I understand that he will seek to catch my eye later, so he might do one of two things for which I asked earlier: he might at least listen.
    Mrs. Beckett: The Financial Times revealed that in 1990 a company called Sovereign Leasing made a donation of £100,000 to the Conservative party. It failed to declare the payment in its accounts, thus breaching the law. The donation came to light only because the company was taken over by the Bank of Austria, which presumably had slightly higher standards.
    There is also on record a company called Hartley Investment Trust. In the run-up to the 1987 general election that company gave £167,000 to the Conservative party, which was the largest corporate donation to the Conservative party ever recorded—so far, at any rate. That company is breaking the law. It should have filed accounts for the year ending March 1991 by the end of April 1992, and for the year ending March 1992 by the end of April 1993. It has failed to do so. That company is chaired by Alan Lewis, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox)—the chairman of the 1922 Committee and a member of the Conservative party's board of finance—is a non-executive director. So let us hear less from the Conservative party about the people who legally give money to the Labour party and declare their donations.
    Mr. James Clappison rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: The background to the way in which the Conservative party receives its money is the reason why we have proposed a charter for political party funding, to apply to all political parties in this country. However the issue may have arisen, we believe that it is right that such a charter should now be introduced, but from the evidence so far it appears singularly unlikely that the Government have either the will or the guts to do that.
    The presence on the Government Front Bench of the Secretary of State for Employment is a clear sign of how the Government propose to handle the debate—and on how they have handled the matter from the beginning, when it was first revealed that the Conservative party had taken money illegally, in secret and from overseas. The Conservatives say nothing about the way in which they are funded—
    Mr. David Ashby rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: All they do is talk about the relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions.
    Mr. Ashby: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have to take a point of order.
    Mr. Ashby: The suggestion has been made, Madam Speaker, that Conservative Members of Parliament have acted illegally. That is a most dreadful slur on Conservative Members, and the fact is—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. A number of Members may not be listening as carefully as I am listening. I have been listening most carefully, and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is talking about the corporate structure of the Conservative party. I ask hon. Members at least to give a hearing to the Front-Bench speakers from both sides. Indeed, I insist that they do so. If hon. Members listened a little more carefully, they might hear a little more clearly what is going on.
    Mrs. Beckett: We already know how Conservative Members will respond to the debate.
    Mr. Ashby rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: Not for a minute.
    Conservative Members will respond as they respond to every criticism or concern, no matter how well founded or by whom expressed. First, they bluster that it is an outrage that they should be criticised at all. Then they say that all the comment is misplaced and results from ignorance or malice. Finally, they assert, as they are asserting today, that no matter how flimsy or non-existent the evidence, their critics are not merely as bad as they but far worse, and hence should say nothing at all.
    The trouble is that Conservative Members probably believe that. It was said of the inhabitants of the Nixon White House at the time of Watergate that part of their problem was that they had become so out of touch with general expectations about standards of behaviour and what was acceptable in political life that they thought that everyone was behaving in the same way as they were but was just not being honest about it.
    My suspicion that that is the attitude of the Conservative party is reinforced by some information that came my way on Sunday courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). At the end of
    180
    last week, I am told, the companies division of the Department of Trade and Industry sent a request to Companies house for the civil servants there to go through the files of 12 of the late Robert Maxwell's companies to see whether they could unearth any undeclared donations to the Labour party. I hope that that means that we will at least be spared in this debate the dubious proposition advanced by the chairman of the Conservative party that it is no concern of the Government whether or not companies obey company law.
    Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Beckett: I must tell the Secretary of State that I find it a somewhat doubtful manoeuvre that civil servants should be asked to do the Conservative party's dirty work. The Conservatives have every right to seek information from Companies house, but why do they not send along someone from the Conservative party and pay a search fee like everyone else?
    Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: The Labour party's position is simple and clear: every year we publish independently audited accounts. They are reported and debated in full at our annual conference.
    Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way now?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to hear this.
    Much of our funding comes, as the world knows, from the trade unions affiliated to our party. Indeed, that is so well known that the Conservative party in government has made repeated attempts over the past 14 years to reduce the funds and remove, if it could and at the very least restrict, the Labour party's access to those funds. In my opinion, that in itself is a rather dangerous use of political power for partisan, party political advantage. That is the kind of thing at which we raise our eyebrows when it happens in third world countries.
    Our relationship with the trade unions is known, public and voluntary. It is governed by the Labour party's rules and constitution and by those of the affiliated trade unions. It is also rigidly controlled by law and supervised by a special officer of the courts. There is no question of a casual disregard for trade union law as there evidently is for company law.
    Mr. Clappison rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: Six million trade unionists voluntarily pay political levies and 4·5 million of them belong to unions affiliated and contributing to the Labour party. Incidentally, they are British—
    Mr. Riddick: Will the right hon. Lady give way now?
    Mr. Rod Richards: Give way.
    Mrs. Beckett: No, I have not finished—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is pretty obvious, even to someone as thick-skinned as me, that the right hon. Lady is not giving way. Therefore, hon. Members should not persist when that is made clear.
    Mrs. Beckett: Those trade unionists live here and vote here and their interests are bound up with the future and well-being of Britain. They have no other axe to grind and no other interests to serve.
    As it happens, the income that we receive from the trade unions is today a declining share of the Labour party's income. Taking the position overall, in 1991 they contributed just over 50 per cent. of the Labour party's income. By a remarkable, although unfortunate coincidence, more than 50 per cent. of the income of the Conservative party in election year came from undeclared sources.
    The trade unions contributed just over £7 million to our general election campaign" 68 per cent. of those funds. The Conservative party apparently received £7 milli on in overseas donations alone for its election campaign—that is the heart of the matter. I say "apparently" because, although the former director of the Conservative party's board of finance, Major-General Wyldbore-Smith, has admitted as much, and its former treasurer, Lord McAlpine, has said on the record that money was paid to the Conservative party through "tons" of offshore and overseas accounts, none of this information is properly in the public domain.
    The British public had no idea, when they cast their votes just over a year ago, that the money for all the seductive and untruthful advertisements attacking the Labour party came, in secret, from outside these islands.
    Mr. Richards: The Labour party's accounts for 1991 show an entry of £228,000 accredited to high-value donor activity. Would the right hon. lady tell us who the donors were and how much each paid?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman can find that information, as he said, in the Labour party's published accounts for 1991. That is the sum total of high-value donations that the Labour party received; it is half of what the Conservative party received from one man alone.
    The hon. Gentleman should take on board the fact that we are not going to accept the total double standards of the Conservative party in this matter. Almost every penny of the money that the Labour party receives is identified by organisation—because most of it comes from organisations and fund raising. We do not give the name of every pensioner who sends us a tenner, or the name of the school caretaker who writes to me every month and donates the tiny sums that he raises for the Labour party. If the Conservative party tells us who pays even half of the funds it receives, we will certainly publish the names of our contributors.
    It is because of all this that we have proposed and published a charter for party political funding. One of our main proposals is that every political party should publish properly audited accounts, refuse donations from people who are neither British residents nor British nationals, and decline ever to take money from foreign Governments or their agents.
    I understand that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the Conservative party has a rule that it does not take money from foreign Governments, despite the many, many rumours to the contrary. It is not clear to me, however, from the reports that I have received of the right hon. Gentleman's evidence when exactly that rule came into force.
    Mr. Riddick: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Hon. Members: Name him.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch my eye later in the debate. He ought to contain himself for the moment because it seems to me that the right hon. Lady is not prepared to give way to him.
    Mrs. Beckett: It is not clear to me when exactly that rule came into force.
    Sir Norman Fowler rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to give way to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make a clear statement on this matter.
    Sir Norman Fowler rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way in just a second.
    I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's evidence to the Select Committee was that such a rule now exists. It is not clear to me that he said clearly to the Select Committee when it came into force. Will he tell us, now, when it came into force?
    Sir Norman Fowler: It has always existed; it exists now and has always existed. Will the right hon. Lady, now that she has raised this question, dissociate herself from the comments that she made this morning about this totally unsubstantiated story about the Saudi Arabian royal family? She has slurred that family. Will she now withdraw her comments?
    Mrs. Beckett: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is at the Dispatch Box. I want to hear what she has to say—whether the House wants to or not.
    Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield should re-read his copy of The Guardian. I see no cause for, and I do not have the slightest intention of, withdrawing what I said. What I said was clear and specific.
    Serious allegations have been made—not by me—that the Conservative party took money from agents on behalf of foreign potentates. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, other allegations have been made that the Conservative party took money from agents of foreign Governments. Those allegations are important and serious and should be discussed. I said that they should be denied if they were untrue. The right hon. Gentleman has denied them, so what is he complaining about?
    Sir Norman Fowler: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the allegations made in The Guardian this morning are totally untrue and that her comments, like much of her speech so far, are simply rumourmongering on her part?
    Mrs. Beckett: There has conspicuously been no answer to other questions put to the right hon. Gentleman by people such as John Latsis and others, and I shall come to that in a moment. The reason why the rumours exist and the stories are—[Interruption.] I will not withdraw.
    Mr. Ashby rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.
    Mrs. Beckett: The reason why the allegations have been made goes to the heart of the debate. The Conservative party will not tell the people of the United Kingdom where it got the money. When Conservative Members tell us that, there will be no need, no cause and, presumably, no further rumours.
    Before the last general election, when the Prime Minister was, as he puts it, "batting for Britain" on a two-day visit to Hong Kong at the expense of the British taxpayer, he devoted a large chunk of his time to batting for the Conservative party, attending a dinner at which large sums were raised for his election campaign. One of those said to have been present is Li Ka-Shing, who is a close associate of the Chinese Government. Many of those said to have been present are reported to have contributed substantially to Tory party funds on that occasion and others. That must, self evidently, have been at least without the disapproval of the Chinese Government and it has been alleged that it was at least partly with money to which they gave their consent. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Box is not the responsibility of the House.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friends are concerned that information has been passed from the Box on what they regard as a party political matter.
    It has been said that one of those present is a large contributor to Conservative party funds. I find it a rich irony that money was given to the Conservative party certainly without the disapproval of the Chinese Government.
    The Labour party has frequently been accused without there being the slightest word of truth in it. I hear Conservative Back Benchers making such comments today, although I notice that they do not have the guts to stand up and say it. The Labour party has often been accused of benefiting from what used to be called Moscow gold.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: The right hon. Lady said that she wanted to come clean about trade union contributions to the Labour party. Would she kindly tell the House about the massive contributions that the trade unions make to marginal constituencies in which trade union officials work full time during election campaigns? How much did that cost and is it fully declared?
    Mrs. Beckett: The problems of Conservative Members are, first, that they assume, as I said earlier, that what they are doing must be what everyone else is doing and, secondly, that they do not understand how the structure of the Labour party works—[Interruption.] There are strict rules about how much funding and support can be given by trade unionists to any constituency and any constituency party.
    Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Beckett: No. I am in the middle of a passage. As I was saying, the suggestion that the Labour party receives money from overseas has always been described in thrilling accents as Moscow gold. The notion that Chinese communists give consent to funding of the Tory election campaign would be hilarious if it were not serious.
    Of course, the Prime Minister's much reported visit to Hong Kong is not an isolated example. My hon. Friend
    184
    the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) obtained through parliamentary questions—[Interruption.]—therefore, the information was extracted with difficulty from the Government—has shown that between 1988 and 1991 there were no fewer than 35 ministerial visits at taxpayers' expense to Hong Kong, of which 16 certainly involved party political activity by the Ministers in question, and a further three probably did.
    Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way now?
    Mrs. Beckett: No.
    Apart from the Prime Minister's visit and the money that was raised from Hong Kong, other allegations have repeatedly been made about a variety of donations, some suggest from Dubai and others suggest from Saudi Arabia and so on.
    But I say again that the heart of the matter is that such allegations are made and they can be made because of the secrecy that surrounds the source of the Tory party's funds. In election year it spent £26 million.
    Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?
    Mrs. Beckett: I notice that Conservative Members always rise to their feet bellowing when we mention the word "secrecy". I wonder why.
    Mr. Clappison rose—
    Madam Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. He has risen about a dozen times. If the right hon. Lady does not wish to give way, he must resume his seat. Does the right hon. Lady wish to give way? No.
    Mrs. Beckett: As I was saying—I am anxious for the House to hear it—in election year the Conservative party spent £26 million. Of that, £15 million was from sources unknown. The Government's case is that none of this matters because those who give such large sums secretly to the Tory party do so without reward or even the expectation of reward, out of the sheer kindness of their hearts.
    It must be a touching scene. Picture, for example, the famous meal in Hong Kong or the lunch held in Downing street just before the election. The talk turns to the shocking state of Britain. So poor, it cannot fund the Conservative party to run a decent election campaign. I wonder whether the Prime Minister allowed a small, brave, manly sob to cross his lips; a friendly arm round his shoulders, "My dear boy, don't say another word. What is a million pounds here or there to me?"
    There is no doubt that Conservative Members will have to eat all those harsh words that they have said over the years about do-gooders. There they are exposed in the ranks of their own friends doing good for the sake of it and, in classic fashion, doing it by stealth.
    What is truly remarkable about the Government's version of events is that it is the overseas contributors in particular who understand that they will receive no reward except in heaven for their noble gesture. That is remarkable because we know that it has not always been so clearly understood by some nearer to home, who should in theory be more familiar with the way in which these things work.

    185
    Lord King is often described as the ultimate insider. He is the man who successfully persuaded the Government to privatise British Airways, from which he, it would be fair to say, has profited enormously. One would think that he must have understood the delicacy of the relationship between donations to Tory party funds and political decision making. But after all those years of close association, he understood so little that he actually withdrew funding a year or so ago, linking that withdrawal explicitly and publicly to a disagreement over Government policy as it affected British Airways.
    Indeed, one almost gets the impression from a report in The Guardian on Monday of a reported conversation between the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev that the Prime Minister forgot for a sheer microsecond, because he is said to have mentioned to Mr. Gorbachev that he was raising the matter because he had promised Lord King that he would. even though British Airways did not give money to the Tory party any more. Of course, as the Prime Minister and his colleagues have explained, that has no relevance as it does not make any difference whether or not money is given to the Tory party.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: The right hon. Lady will recall the explosive issue of routes to Tokyo and slots at Heathrow, when British Airways did not get what it wanted despite the money it paid to the Tory party—[Interruption]—which surely proves that one cannot buy influence. Does she agree that that proves that influence cannot be bought from the Tory party?
    Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear—[interruption]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that I heard the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but what I heard of his remarks was well worth hearing.
    The Prime Minister said last week that companies donated money to the Tory party because British business
    "believes that our policies are right for British business, the British future and British jobs"—[Official Report, 17 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 990.]
    Again, those who might be expected to be aware that that was the only reason for giving money to the Conservative party do not always seem to realise it.
    During the Guinness dispute with Distillers, Ernest Saunders got quite the wrong end of the stick. As he said on television:
    "One of them, a very senior figure … said he noticed we did not contribute to the Conservative Party and when were we going to … I think there were three occasions during the period … when it … came up, not in any way as a threat. But it came up sufficiently for me to realise that if we were going to go on rolling, I would have to put this matter to the board and our policy would have to be re-thought."
    The interviewer asked Mr. Saunders what he thought the comment had meant and he replied—[interruption] I am sure that Conservative Members want to hear the reply, which was:
    "I took it … to indicate that if one was going to need political access at the highest level, and political support, then an ongoing … relationship which involved contributions, would have to be part of the agenda."
    We now know that he was just being reminded of the wonderful opportunities for charitable giving. It all makes a truly amazing story, some might even say an incredible one. Of course, that is just what it is—incredible, literally beyond belief. It is no longer tolerable that the party of
    186
    government should take such large sums of money secretly and refuse to reveal to the British people whence they come.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not significant that the two cases where the evidence is at its clearest—Sovereign Leasing and Asil Nadir—came about through extraneous circumstances, that is, the receivership and the take-over of the company? So is it not likely that there are bodies buried all over the place? Surely it is right in a democracy that the governing party should come clean and show us where those bodies are.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in his observation that most of the matters of which we know have emerged only incidentally and the Conservative party has not revealed the source of the money.
    What is infinitely more serious than the award of honours—itself a minor scandal to which I have referred—is the influence that such secret donations buy on the policy of the British Goverment. In 1990 and in 1991, when debating the Finance Bill, we raised the issue of the generous tax treatment of offshore trusts. We said that the costs to the British taxpayers of such measures were estimated to be between £1 billion and £2 billion, and sought to persuade the Government to make a change of policy. First, the Government poured scorn on the figures. They then refused to make a change. Finally, they claimed in 1991 to have completely resolved the matter. That case was not accepted by independent commentators and accountants.
    I wonder whether it would have been so readily accepted by the British press if it had known that it was through such trusts and accounts that money, which at the time the Tories desperately needed, was being channelled into Tory party funds from overseas. Similarly, the tax treatment of investors not domiciled in Britain makes this country, together with countries such as Luxembourg and Switzerland, one of the most generous in the world to the seriously rich.
    Ministers boast of Britain being a tax haven. This year's Finance Bill further loosened the law on tax avoidance for those with available accommodation in the United Kingdom who may not now need to be taxed as residents. Meanwhile, the Government's utterly incompetent management of our economy has left us in debt up to our ears, and Ministers are attacking the unemployed, those with disabilities and pensioners. Those who give the Conservative party money are benefiting at the expense of those who have only votes to give.
    Other questions about the effects of the process on Government policy are bound to arise. Why do we not ban tobacco advertising, as all medical advice suggests that we should? Is it because of the money that tobacco companies give to the Tory party—and at what cost to the British taxpayer through the health service? Why does the British taxpayer pay for an army training facility in Dubai when swingeing cuts are being made in defence expenditure? Is it, as has been alleged, as a quid pro quo because the Sultan of Dubai donates to Tory party funds?
    Mr. Ashby: That is sleaze.
    Mrs. Beckett: Yes, it is sleaze.
    Why have the Government so singularly failed to police the Companies Acts? Even more outrageous, why does the Tory party advise companies on how to get round the

    187
    existing legislative curbs and make donations to the Tory party by the back door so that their shareholders are kept in ignorance of what is being done? We know that it has recently done so.
    The policies of Britain's Government should be decided by what is in the interests of the people of Britain and should never be subjugated to what is in the interests of the Tory party. If that is not happening, what do the Government have to hide? Why do they not publish full accounts? Why do they not adopt our charter proposals, which are simple and straightforward? I think that Conservative Members have forgotten that this is not the first time that the Government have had the opportunity to clean up their act.
    In January 1989 the House of Lords carried an amendment to put the treatment of donations by companies on much the same footing as the treatment of donations by trade unions to the Labour party. That amendment was rejected in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield—who has made a lot of noise today, but all from a sedentary position—was the man who moved to reject the amendment. He said that the issue would have to be placed on an annual general meeting agenda, would be a nuisance and shareholders could get rid of directors if they chose. He said in Committee:
    "That is why I believe that it would be wrong in principle to clutter the agenda of annual general meetings in this way"—[Official Report, Standing Committee, 16 May 1989; c. 8.]
    What an important consideration—a major and terribly worrying matter—that it would be wrong in principle for shareholders to be bothered with the little matter of whether their company gives hundreds of thousands of pounds of their money to the Conservative party, with or without their knowledge!
    The suspicion unquestionably exists that, if the Conservative party will not reveal from where it obtains more than 50 per cent. of its money—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Labour party does not."] We reveal from where we obtain almost every single penny that we receive. More than 50 per cent. is undeclared, secret, large parts of it from overseas. If the Conservative party refuses to make that declaration, the suspicion must arise that the damage that would be done to the Conservative party by the British people finding out from where it obtains its money is even worse than the damage that is being done today by secrecy.
    The call for reform comes not only from the Government's political opponents, but from within the ranks of the Conservative party itself. The Conservative party's organisation, the Charter Movement, says:
    "The Conservative party should not be financed from abroad. It should not be financed by or on behalf of foreign governments. It should not be financed by those who have no vote in United Kingdom elections. It should not be financed in a furtive way."
    Those are the words of the constituents and members of the Conservative party and they would be ashamed if they saw the way in which their representatives are behaving in the House of Commons today.
    Lord McAlpine said on British television the other evening that he did not know that Asil Nadir was, as he put it, a crook. But if his donations had been publicly
    188
    declared from the beginning, it is highly probable that word would have got back about the questions being asked.
    There is in all this a terrible danger for the health and well-being of democracy in Britain, a danger of which Conservative Members have no inkling or understanding. If the British people come to believe that the very processes of democracy are being insidiously suborned, to their existing disillusion with the blatant casual betrayal of all the promises that the Government made them at the election might be added that deep corrosive cynicism that, wherever it is found, saps public confidence in democracy and creates profound public unease.
    This is a shabby Government, a deceitful Government, a Government unworthy of the trust that the British people placed in them last year. Their weaknesses and deceits permeate and disfigure the very fabric of British life. It is time that they went.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is not it an ancient tradition in the House and in the country that the civil service is non-political and apolitical? During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), eight civil servants sitting in the Box have been passing notes to the Minister on political points. Is not that an example of the stinking corruption of the Government and do not you, Madam Speaker, have the power to remove civil servants who are being tainted by such an example?
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give credibility to what he has just said. We must bear in mind the fact that those to whom he refers cannot answer for themselves.
    Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand perfectly that those who serve the Government cannot answer for themselves. That is all the more reason why they themselves should make it clear that they are not associated with the Government's political fortunes. If you, Madam Speaker, have no power to remove them and if the Government do not have the decency to remove those civil servants from temptation, might not it be better if the civil servants took their own action to protect their own order?
    Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
    4.35 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'believes that the principle of voluntary funding underpins the strength of democratic political parties in this country; records its concern at the purchase by trade unions of votes in the election of the Labour Party leadership, the selection of candidates and of votes on policy at Labour's Party Conference sufficient to secure binding commitments; and calls upon the Labour Party to end the control over its policy, organisation and leadership wielded by a small number of trade union leaders.'.
    I have been in this House for about 17 years, but I do not believe that I have ever heard such a shabby, irresponsible, miserable speech. What a waste of an Opposition day this is. Gone suddenly are the demands by the right hon. Lady for debates on public expenditure, Bosnia and unemployment. It is amazing what a little good news will do. The right hon. Lady calls herself the deputy Leader of the Labour party. I believe that she will grow to

    189
    be quite ashamed of her speech, which was riddled with rumour, innuendo and smear. She referred to an atmosphere of sleaze. The only atmosphere of sleaze that exists after her speech is to be found among Opposition Members.
    Why are we debating political funding today? I know the answer. From the depths of Walworth road has come some rather bad news. The general election defeat has left the Labour party with the most serious financial crisis in its history. I hear someone say that that is not true. I have here the report of the national executive committee of the Labour party, which says:
    "The general election defeat has left the Labour party with probably the most serious financial crisis in its history."
    Now we know why we are having this debate. The Labour party wants to get its paws on the public purse. It wants the taxpayer to bail out its sinking ship. Enough of the pretence. That is really what this debate is all about. It is about the Labour party's desire to have state funding of political parties. But the confidence trick is exposed for what it really is—just a ruse by that party to get its hands on taxpayers' money. That is the party's secret agenda.
    The saddest aspect of this debate so far is the willingness of the main Opposition party to strike at the heart of our political system and our democracy. They are trying, by a series of slurs and innuendos, to bring our democracy into disrepute. In recent years they have not only opposed the Conservative Government but sought to undermine the very foundations of our political system. In doing so, they destroy their own credibility. They now attack everything. They do not have policies any more; they just manufacture political smears.
    Let me give some examples. Despite the words of the Lord President at Prime Minister's Question Time today, the right hon. Lady maintained the allegation contained in The Guardian of this morning, which is now being exposed as a slur. The allegation has been shown to be completely without foundation. A statement issued earlier today, which was referred to by the Lord President, made it clear not only that no such meeting as had been alleged took place but that neither Prince Bandar Bin Sultan nor anyone connected with the Saudi Arabian Government has made donations to the Conservative party, directly or indirectly, or has been asked for such donations. Why, then, did not the right hon. Lady withdraw that disgraceful imputation?
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: I will give way later.
    In her speech, the right hon. Lady sought not only to uphold the credibility of that baseless allegation, but to raise a number of other unsubstantiated allegations. I believe that Labour Members will fail in their attempt, because the integrity of our system shines through all that they say.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat; the Secretary of State is not giving way now.
    Mr. Hunt: Like so many good things in this country, that integrity is recognised everywhere else in the world, but not on the Opposition Benches.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know very well that, if the Secretary of State will not give way, they must resume their seats in good time. Hon. Members must be patient.
    Mr. Hunt: I am proud to be part of a British political system that has stood the test of time throughout the ages, despite the Labour party's attempts to undermine it.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: Just one moment.
    I thought that the right hon. Member for Derby, South made a very serious error of judgment when she attacked the honours system.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: One moment.
    The Labour party alleges that, in this country, money can buy honours and favours. That may have been so some years ago, but it is not true today. In fact, on 4 March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a series of measures to improve the system, including making the means of nomination for honours much more open and widely known. What is not sufficiently well known is the rigorous scrutiny that is conducted to maintain the integrity of the system.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: Just one moment. Let me finish what I wish to say about the honours system.
    Our honours system gives the nation an opportunity to recognise the enormous contribution that so many people make to our way of life. The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for many years. That whole system is subject to a series of safeguards, which I will explain to the House.
    Scrutiny is carried out independently and impartially. If the right hon. Member for Derby, South or any of her chums doubt that, let them come out and say so. Let me explain how the system works. All recommendations for policital honours are examined carefully by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, which is composed of distinguished Privy Councillors; all three major parties are represented. Its members are Lord Pym, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Thomson of Montifieth. It is no accident that two former Labour Cabinet Ministers are among their number—although one has now joined the Liberal Democrats.
    When the leader of any party nominates any individual for a political honour—[Interruption.] I shall come to the other honours in a moment. It is important that I put the record straight, in view of the right hon. Lady's disgraceful attack on the system.
    In those circumstances, it is the duty of the Chief Whip of any party to provide the Scrutiny Committee with a

    191
    statement detailing any payments—or expectation of payment—given to any party by any individual concerned, directly or indirectly, with such payments. In addition, the Chief Whip must provide an assurance that those donations were made without expectations of an honour. All other names—apart from those receiving political honours—come forward through a system of repeated scrutiny, on which political interests are not represented.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: Just one moment.
    My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) extended the system so that all names added by the Prime Minister for senior honours should also be scrutinised, in the same way as political honours.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: Just one moment.
    That system is founded on a combination of non-partisanship and inter-party consensus. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition and his Front Bench that any attempt to undermine it will have profound constitutional consequences.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) gave the House an absolute undertaking that the Conservative party had not received any moneys from the Saudi authorities—the Saudi Government. Will the Secretary of State now answer a question? Has any Saudi-sponsored agency, any Saudi-based business man or any Saudi national arranged to lend, lent or given large sums to the Conservative party—or any Conservative party funding organisation—in the past three years?
    Mr. Hunt: I am not aware of any such circumstances. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I consider it disgraceful for Opposition Members to throw out accusations in this way without naming the individuals concerned.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his question; he must now contain himself.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the credibility of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) as an authority on sleaze would have been strengthened if, during her disgraceful speech, she had had the courage to refer to the "lavender list" of resignation honours published in 1976 and the bankrolling of the private office of the then Labour leader, Harold Wilson, by private subscription? I believe that some of the people on the Opposition Benches featured on that lavender list.
    Mr. Hunt: I just happen to have a copy of the lavender list. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that he continues attacks of this kind at his peril. If Labour Members wish to get into the sewer of politics, they should hardly complain when they find that they are up to their necks in it.
    192
    Let me put one or two questions to Labour Members. I am growing increasingly impatient with their hypocrisy on the subject of Mr. Robert Maxwell.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: Just one moment.
    I will not embarrass Labour Members by asking how many of them were given free lunches, dinners and drinks by Mr. Maxwell.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may be proud of that, but I am not giving way.
    For many years, the Labour party enjoyed the sponsorship of Mr. Maxwell and his Daily Mirror newspaper. There was a very public cheque, accepted with grovelling gratitude, by a Labour party conference. How much more money was involved and was that money his to give? It has certainly not been repaid. We hear from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that he is very happy about that money. I wonder whether the Maxwell pensioners are happy about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems confused as to how much was given. First, Walworth road put out an authoritative statement that £43,000 had been given by Mr. Maxwell. That figure then became £41,000, then £38,000 and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke on the radio a short time ago, it had sunk to £31,000.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The cheque bounced.
    Mr. Hunt: I have it on good authority that that particular cheque did not bounce. Will the Labour party tell us exactly how much was received?
    Mrs. Beckett rose—
    Mr. Hunt: I am happy to give way to the right hon. Lady if she will tell us exactly how much was received by the Labour party from the late Mr. Maxwell.
    Mrs. Beckett: The Labour party received £31,000 from Mr. Maxwell-rather less than even one of the many donations made by Asil Nadir.
    Mr. Hunt rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: I have not finished yet. The right hon. Gentleman asked a question and I am giving the answer.
    No other money was received. That money was given because Mr. Maxwell matched a collection made at the Labour party conference. It must have been one of the most public donations ever given to a British political party since it was given on prime time television. The right hon. Gentleman now has his answer. That is all that the Labour party received.
    Mr. Hunt: I can hardly wait to respond. We know about that donation only because it was on television. If it had not been on television, we would never have known about it.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: The Labour party does not reveal details of high value donations. If the late Mr. Maxwell had not chosen to make his highly public gesture on television, the House would never have known about it.
    I have another point to make to the right hon. Member for Derby, South. What about all the other payments? What about the £38,000 paid by Mr. Maxwell towards the costs of a legal action to overturn the Boundary Commission's proposals in 1982? That was undertaken on behalf of the then leader of the Labour party and it is acknowledged in the many books on the subject that he was exceedingly grateful for that £38,000. It has been well documented on many occasions and I will provide all the extracts. Also, it was recently reported in the newspapers. I hope that the right hon, Member for Derby, South will make inquiries.
    I am sad that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has left us for a moment. I pay tribute to his integrity because he believes that all the money should be repaid by the Labour party.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the issue concerning my constituents—he has not yet begun to address it—is that Lord King made it clear that he was withdrawing support from the Conservative party because a discrete area of policy no longer pleased him? What is the country to conclude about all the other contributors to the Conservative party, both declared and secret, who continue to pay money to that party?
    Mr. Hunt: That was a baseless allegation, but the hon. Gentleman will not divert me. He held the post of secretary to the parliamentary Labour party and he will know the extent of the late Robert Maxwell's support for the Labour party. I have not even begun to deal with trade union funding.
    Mr. Tony Banks: So far, we have heard about Robert Maxwell. The Secretary of State keeps saying that all this is well documented. That is fine, because everyone can examine the documents and draw their own conclusions. Since he has told us how much Mr. Maxwell gave directly and indirectly to the Labour party—we have never tried to hide that—will the Secretary of State tell us how much Asil Nadir gave to the Conservative party? How much was given by Mr. Latsis, Mr. Botnar, Mr. Yiren and Mr. Ka-Shing? We will do a deal. If the Conservative party pays back the money to those people, we will club together and pay back the money from Robert Maxwell.
    Mr. Hunt: Before the hon. Gentleman has a whip round among his hon. Friends, let me tell him about that list of names. Statements have been made making it clear, for instance, in the case of Mr. Li Ka-Shing, that the allegations are completely baseless. I understand that the next edition of Business Age magazine will contain a detailed retraction and an apology. I should like the hon. Gentleman to consider doing the same.
    I have given details of moneys donated by the late Robert Maxwell that have reached public scrutiny. I should like to know—I hope that the right hon. Member for Derby, South will consider this—what other sums have not seen the light of day.
    Let me blow away the smokescreen surrounding the Opposition's motion. When the Polly Peck group made a series of donations totalling £440,000 to the Conservative
    194
    party during the 1980s there was no evidence of any malpractice. We have always made it clear that the Conservative party will return any stolen funds to their rightful owners. The chairman of the Conservative party has made it clear that the party does not accept contributions where there is any suspicion that they have been obtained illegally. We do not accept contributions where there is any question of strings being attached and we certainly do not accept contributions from foreign Governments.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: If Opposition Members addressed themselves to the substance of their motion, they would see that a fundamental quesiton arises. If they were ever to regain power, would they make it illegal for individuals to make anonymous donations to political parties? [Interruption.] If they would not, the motion is spurious, but, if they would—and they seem to be saying "yes"—some important democratic principles are at stake. Political activity, like charitable activity, is voluntary. The Conservative party at least upholds the principle that contributors should be entitled to privacy. I believe that the principle of voluntary funding underpins the strength of our democracy and the party political system in this country and we destroy it at our peril.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hunt: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He cast a disgraceful slur on the integrity of our individual civil servants and condemned them collectively.
    The critical difference between the funding of the two main parties is that when companies donate to the Conservative party they do so because they share and support Conservative principles and policies. When trade unions give to the Labour party cause they do so because they want to decide its principles and policies.
    It is striking that there is no obvious queue of enterprises or entrepreneurs waiting to fund the Labour party. The only queue at Walworth road is of Labour members quitting the party en masse; according to the figures that I have read in the accounts of the Labour party, its membership went down by 50,000 between 1990 and 1991. Indeed, some reports now put it as low as 100,000. This means that the membership of the Labour party is now equal to that of the Liberal Democratic party. Labour Members should ask themselves why.
    On the subject of the disclosure requirements of the Companies Act 1985, which the right hon. Member for Derby, South mentioned, I shall make some important points so that Opposition Members can desist from making ill-informed comments. I do so, unavoidably, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I send him, on behalf of the House, our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
    Members of the Opposition seem to misunderstand the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in enforcing the disclosure requirements. It is primarily the duty of companies and their directors to comply. Having said that, however, the DTI takes its responsibilities very seriously by, for example, following up allegations of non-compliance, except where the matter is more appropriately handled by another agency.

    195
    In the case of Polly Peck—[interruption] This is an important point. In the case of Polly Peck, the Serious Fraud Squad Office has taken the lead.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Can the Minister say, therefore, why, late last week, the companies division of the DTI asked Companies house in Cardiff if it would research the box of one group of companies only—the group of companies associated with Robert Maxwell—to see whether the directors had properly declared all such contributions? In the light of the controversy this afternoon already about the possible abuse of civil servants and politics, will he say whether he thinks that that request was a proper use of civil servants' time?
    Mr. Hunt: That is typical of the sort of allegation that is being made. I am not aware of any such circumstances. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed, but I will, of course, investigate. The hon. Gentleman should not make allegations of that nature without checking thoroughly in advance. It is wrong to seek to involve civil servants in a party political battle.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Since the right hon. Gentleman referred to Polly Peck a moment ago, may I remind him of what he said five minutes earlier, which I wrote down at the time? He said that the Conservative party does not accept contributions where there is any suspicion that they were illegally obtained. Is the Secretary of State asking the House to accept that there is no suspicion that the money received from Polly Peck and Asil Nadir was illegally obtained? If he is not saying that, why does not he agree to give it back to where it belongs?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman chose to misinterpret what I said and what has been said by my right hon. Friend. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Conservative party does not accept contributions if there is any suspicion that they were illegally obtained. That applies to all the donations that the Conservative party receives. I also said that the Conservative party does not accept donations where there is any suspicion that there are strings attached. That is not the case with trade union donations to the Labour party.
    Mr. Edmonds recently showed the red card to the leader of the Labour party and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He said:
    "We pay for the Party, we have the right to democracy in the Party."
    Democracy usually means one member, one vote; in the Labour party it means one trade union leader, I million votes.
    The trade unions—meaning, in practice, a small handful of trade union leaders—control 40 per cent. of the electoral college for the party leader; they account for 70 per cent. of the votes at the annual conference. No fewer that 175 Labour Members of the House are sponsored by unions.
    I remember that the late Joe Gormley said that they had a certain number of Members of Parliament in their bank, because they funded them through the National Union of Mineworkers. And Tom Sawyer, of the National Union of Public Employees, said on 2 June last year that while they continued to fund the party,
    "we will have a say. It is as crude as that. No say, no pay."
    196
    Trade unions now supply over 70 per cent. of the Labour party's finance.
    In many ways I am a strong believer in trade unions, but I believe that they do themselves a great disservice by identifying themselves with one political party only and allowing it to be a parasite living off trade union funds.
    We have heard very little evidence from the Labour party and what evidence we have heard I have refuted. I remind the House that the hidden agenda for today's debate is Labour's desire to have its political campaigning funded by the taxpayer. The reason behind that is obvious and it is a paradox for Opposition Members.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister referred earlier to the late Joe Gormley and implied that sponsored members of the National Union of Mineworkers went along with what he had to say. Let me just put him straight. At the time that Joe Gormley was president of the NUM, he was in favour of the Common Market; I was not. He was in favour of the Labour Government's pay policy and I voted against it. He was in favour of proportional representation and I was not. Joe Gormley has gone and I am still here.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Bolsover was not here earlier when I paid a tribute to him for his integrity by saying that, if he had his way, the Maxwell money would be repaid. He is nodding in agreement.
    Mr. Skinner: I am in nobody's pocket.
    Mr. Hunt: Exactly. I am saying exactly what the hon. Member for Bolsover is saying. He is in nobody's pocket, but the rest of his party is in the trade union pocket.
    There is a paradox for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. While Labour remains in the grip of the trade union movement it is unelectable. If it tries to escape from the trade unions, it will become bankrupt. How on earth can is square that circle? As usual with the Labour party, it is the taxpayer who provides the answer. I shall tell the Labour party the problems about state financing, which are all too obvious. It is wrong in principle to fund political campaigning. Why on earth should the taxpayer,who already has to fund the health service, education and defence, fund the Labour party's political campaigning?
    How are the moneys to be allocated between the parties? If it is by seats won, we should hear protests from the Liberal Democratic party, which is one of the strongest advocates of the state financing of political parties. If the money was allocated on the basis of votes cast at an election as far back as four years previously, what equity would there be? No doubt the Labour party would allocate funds according to the latest opinion poll. It allocates policies according to the latest opinion poll, so why not do that with its finances as well?
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would not it be healthy, to put it at its simplest, if political parties were funded from taxation rather than from moneys provided by foreigners?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has listened carefully to the whole debate. I have already dealt effectively with that point.
    Mr. Derek Enright: What about the Saudis?
    Mr. Hunt: I dealt with the point comprehensively.

    197
    The debate has been prompted by a desire to have taxpayers' money funding the Labour party. The Labour party's submission to the Select Committee on Home Affairs gives the game away. It is a lengthy wish list for cash from the taxpayer and it reads rather like a plaintive version of the Labour party manifesto. In its own words, the Labour party is here today to
    "argue for the introduction of forms of State aid"
    for political parties. If Labour wants a party, let it pay for it and not the taxpayer.
    We learnt during last year's general election campaign that the Labour party has descended from the days of Gaitskell and Attlee to being the party of "nudge nudge, wink wink" and the party of rumour and innuendo—indeed, the party of the sly innuendo. Today's speech by the right hon Member for Derby, South was a travesty and a disgrace. It pitched, weaved and evaded, while all the time seeking to undermine some of our most hallowed institutions. The right hon. Lady will not be allowed to get away with it. The Labour party always denigrates what is good about Britain. The Government stand for the integrity of the existing system. I will not allow the Labour party to undermine public confidence in the integrity of our system. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to throw out the motion.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I reiterate, because of the time, my plea for short speeches. A number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye.
    5.12 pm
    Mr. Doug Hoyle: I have never heard such synthetic anger as that demonstrated by the Secretary of Slate for Employment. He had nothing to say and no information to give us. We still do not know in whose pockets the Tories are. The right hon. Gentleman threw no light on the sources of Tory party funds. I can only hope that, when it is the turn of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the chairman of the Conservative party, a little more information will be given to the House.
    The debate is about the secretive and sleazy way in which the Tory party is funded. It is about the unique way in which honours fall on company chairmen who give to the Tory party. It is also about the very curious case of Mr. Asil Nadir and the help that he has received from Conservative Members.
    No answer was given by the Secretary of State. Indeed, he demonstrated to us, once again, that the Tories are afraid to reveal the sources of the funds that pour into their coffers. Can the Secretary of State tell us why the Tories published their accounts until 1979, since when those accounts have not been published? It is interesting that that change came about.
    Mr. Tim Smith rose—
    Mr. Hoyle: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall tell him what information is now given to us. We understand the expenditure and what Tory central office receives. In 1992, central office received £20·7 million. When we asked about that and about company donations, the Tory party told us to look at company accounts. I repeat: in 1992, the Tories received £20·7 million. When the records were checked by Companies house, only £2·9
    198
    million was shown in company accounts. That means that there is a deficit of £17·8 million. We want to know where that £17·8 million came from.
    Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman has made the suggestion about the accounts of the Conservative party that was made by a member of the Select Committee last week : that no accounts had been published between 1979 and 1983. They were published, and I undertook to send copies to the Select Committee.
    Mr. Hoyle: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I expected him to tell me where the difference of £17·8 million came from. I shall give way again to him. I am told that he is a treasurer of the Conservative party. I give way to him now so that he can stand up and tell us where the £17·8 million came from. Does the hon. Gentleman care to do that? I am waiting. I do not think that we shall get the information from the horse's mouth. We certainly did not get it from the Secretary of State.
    Matters are worse than that. According to Business Age, £71 million has been donated in this way since 1985. [Laughter.] I hear Conservative Members laughing. I am quite prepared to sit down and to let one of them get up and tell us where the money came from. No. That has finished it now. The lager louts have finished for today.
    Mr. Ashby rose—
    Mr. Hoyle: No—there is one left.
    Mr. Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this marvellous magazine Business Age is really the "Hello" of business publications? It talked about Sarawak as a desert kingdom, when it is in Borneo.
    Mr. Hoyle: That is a very useful piece of information, which has added to my knowledge. Does the hon. Gentleman now care to tell us, taking just 1992, where the almost £18 million that is unaccounted for came from? We know that the funding—
    Mr. Nigel Evans: This is boring.
    Mr. Hoyle: It may be boring, but it is nevertheless true. In fact, it is not boring to my colleagues, because we should like a little light shone on the matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help us.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I have to tell my hon. Friend that he is being very unfair to Conservative Members. They will not be able to answer my hon. Friend. I refer him to evidence given to the Select Committee, particularly that from Mr. Eric Chalker, who was on the Conservative Board of Finance and who represented 84 constituencies. He said:
    "Over £67 million of expenditure was recorded by the Conservative Party … in my fours years on the Committee, but no one had to account for a penny of it to the Conservative Board of Finance nor to any other elected body."
    Conservative Members do not know the answers; nor does anyone else.
    Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps only two people know where the funding came from. One is Lord McAlpine, whom the unfortunate President of the Board of Trade apparently saw on his visit to Venice. I join the Secretary of State for Employment in hoping that the right hon. Gentleman has

    199
    a speedy and full recovery and is soon back in the House. However, the President of the Board of Trade visited Lord McAlpine, and Lord McAlpine is one of the men who knows.
    The other person is perhaps someone to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) referred—Sir Brian Wyldbore-Smith. He is apparently a director of the Conservative Board of Finance—a curious name, but a curious job, too. Apparently, Sir Brian used private addresses to receive cheques—they were not sent directly to central office. They were made out to him personally, eventually passed on and often paid into an offshore account in Jersey, a tax haven.
    They eventually landed at central office with Lord McAlpine, whose office, I understand, was always kept locked except when he was in it, so that the secrets could not be given to the rank and file or to members of the Cabinet. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) is right to say that Conservative Members do not know where the funding came from.
    I fully expected the Secretary of State to tell us about foreign backers, as that is what part of the debate is about. Why did we not hear about the foreign business people who poured money into the Conservative party's coffers? Why did we not hear a bit about what came from all the trips made to Hong Kong, the 16 occasions when Tory fund raisers went there with Ministers?
    Perhaps the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield can tell us a little more about Li Ki-Shing, the Hong Kong-based billionaire. He is one of the richest people in Hong Kong, and was the Chinese Government's representative at the Hong Kong and Shanghai bank, which we all know recently took over the Midland bank. Perhaps the £1 million that he is reported to have given was payment for allowing the takeover to go through—[Interruption.] Is anyone denying that he gave £1 million? I am prepared to give way. Are you telling me that he did not give £1 million or that you do not know? You have your opportunity—
    Several hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I control the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time, so he knows that I have no responsibility for the £1 million to which he is referring.
    Mr. Hoyle: Thank goodness, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all very relieved that you have no responsibility for it.
    Let us consider Greek shipping millionaires, because they are interesting people. John Latsis is reported to have given £2 million to the Tory party by 1991. He had previously given £500,000. If Conservative Members do not believe it. why do they not intervene to say so?
    What about the curious case of the Sultan of Brunei, who was very close to the previous Prime Minister and her family? What about the Fayed brothers, who took over the House of Fraser? There was great difficulty in getting the Department of Trade and Industry's report of the inquiry into the case published. They are still company directors, but we do not share the Tories' amusement about that.
    The DTI inspector said that the Fayed brothers had dishonestly represented their origins, their wealth, their business interests and their resources to the Secretary of
    200
    State, the Office of Fair Trading, the House of Fraser directors and shareholders and their advisers. However, because of previous contributions, they are still acting as company directors.
    I shall mention Asil Nadir a little later. We are told that he had no right to expect an honour or a peerage for his donations to the Tory party. I think that he was treated very unfairly, because the facts are that industrialists who give money to the Tory party are far more likely to receive an honour than non-donors.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) mentioned United Biscuits and the £1 million given to the Tory party in order to gain an honour for Sir Hector Laing. Is he also aware that a factory closed in my constituency which, had it received that £1 million in investment, would not have had to close, with the loss of 1,000 very much needed jobs?
    Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend—it would have been a much better use of the money donated to the Tory party.
    Let us consider the facts. One hundred of 199 donations brought honours to directors or chairmen of companies which had given to the Tory party.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it not strange that seven Conservative Members made representations, written and oral, to the Attorney-General—in one case, the hon. Member saw him in the Division Lobby? We know who three of the seven are; why do the remaining four not explain why they made representations when there could have been no constituency interest? Is it because Mr. Nadir was involved in Tory party finance, or is it something even more sinister?
    Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had intended to ask that question a little later. We need an explanation of why those names are being withheld from the House. What have they to hide? Why is the Attorney-General not prepared to make them public? The Secretary of State has not explained, so we can only hope that the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, will not only tell us why the names have been withheld but give us the names themselves. Let us have a little openness in the debate.
    Before I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North who made a good intervention, I was saying that 100 out of the 199 honours awarded were given to people in charge of companies that had donated to the Conservative party. The interesting aspect of that is that only 6 per cent. of the companies concerned disclosed the donations.
    Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has been up and down all day. Of course I shall give way to him.
    Mr. Burns: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair, so would he care to tell the House how many contributors to the Labour party between 1964 and 1970, and between 1974 and March 1976, were friends of the then Prime Minister and received honours in honours lists?
    Hon. Members: Pass.
    Mr. Hoyle: Yes, that question is not even worth replying to.[Interruption.] Now Conservative Members are shouting; now they have come to life. When we asked them to tell us who contributed the missing £17·9 million in one year alone—1992—they were struck silent. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) intends to answer that question, I hope that he will intervene, but I shall not give way to frivolous interventions. I am giving the hon. Gentleman every opportunity to answer the question. He could tell us now. He does not know? He does not, but he does not deny the fact either.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South was right to name a few of the companies.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: While we are on the subject of illegality and donations, is my hon. Friend aware that Sir Geoffrey Mulcahy, of the Kingfisher Group, was given an honour in this year's honours list at a time when his subsidiary B and Q was leading the fight by illegally trading on Sundays?
    Mr. Hoyle: That is a rather telling point. It may account for the Government's total opposition to the Bill on Sunday trading introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). We are talking about huge donations. We have been told that United Biscuits gave £1 million, and we know the honours that were received. And what about Hanson?
    Mr. Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of United Biscuits got his knighthood from a Labour Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
    Mr. Hoyle rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was watching the debate on the monitor before I came into the Chair, so I know that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has been enjoying himself today. I am having great difficulty in hearing the debate, and if I am to control the debate, I wish to hear it. If hon. Members on both sides would control themselves, that would be of advantage to the debate.
    Mr. Hoyle: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you rightly said, we have been watching the antics of the Conservative lager louts all the afternoon, except when they were struck dumb when we asked where the money came from.
    Mr. Ashby: What about United Biscuits?
    Mr. Hoyle: Yes, Hector Laing received his knighthood as the hon. Gentleman said, but—[Laughter.] When hon. Members have had their little joke, perhaps they will listen. When Sir Hector Laing gave £1 million, he received his peerage from a Conservative Government. Not only that, but his successor Sir Robert Clarke also received his knighthood from a Conservative Government.
    Now let us deal with the curious case of Lord Hanson. Hanson gave £852,000, and not one person but two people received peerages—Lords Hanson and White. At the time of the takeover bid for ICI, was it not rather curious how reluctant the Conservative Government were to take action?
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hoyle: Ah, the Front Bench at last.
    Mr. Newton: I am especially interested in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has sought to get away from the subject of United Biscuits. He has started talking about Lord Hanson, who received a knighthood in the lavender list. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hoyle: But again, Lord Hanson received his peerage from the Conservative party—
    Mr. Burns: Dig the hole deeper.
    Mr. Hoyle: Conservative Members are enjoying themselves now. Perhaps the hon. Member for Chelmsford would like to stand up and tell me where the money comes from.
    The Leader of the House might have mentioned the fact that Lord White received a peerage although he spends most of his time overseas, in the United States. That was a good pay-off. So it was not surprising that, when one of our leading companies was threatened, there was not much action by the Government to defend it.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend mentioned United Biscuits and the substantial contribution that it has made to the Conservative party. Is he aware that United Biscuits pressed for the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board, with a view to securing a substantial reduction in the price of potatoes? United Biscuits did that because it is one of Britain's largest users of potatoes, in its processing plants.
    The general view in the potato industry is that there is a direct link between the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board and the contribution to the Conservative party. [Laughter.] That is the general view in the farming industry. Let Conservative Members deny it.
    Mr. Hoyle: I am amazed at the hilarity shown by Conservative Members when my hon. Friend made that telling point. Do they no longer want farmers' votes? Are the contributions from United Biscuits more important to the Conservative party than farmers' votes?
    I could carry on with a long list—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."] If I had time, I could go on to Taylor Woodrow and P and O, and Sir Jeffrey—now Lord—Sterling, and many more. But I shall not bore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I hope that the answer to many of the questions that I have asked will be given by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, the chairman of the Conservative party.
    Asil Nadir believes—with much justification in my view—that he has been extremely badly treated by the Conservative party. The Conservatives now admit that he gave £400,000, and Mr. Nadir claims to have given an awful lot more. Some of that £400,000 was given after it was alleged that he stole money from Polly Peck. [HON. MEMBERS: "Alleged."] Of course, alleged.
    If any of us wanted to buy a television set in a pub, he would probably look twice at it before buying, and if it turned out to be stolen, he would be charged with receiving stolen goods. Yet the Conservatives will not give the money back. They say that they may if it is demanded of them, yet they know that that money was not shown in Polly Peck's financial returns.
    Mr. Nick Raynsford: We have heard the Secretary of State claim that the Conservative party would always give back any money if there was a suspicion that

    203
    it had come from an illegal source. That was most interesting, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend knows whether there is any record of the Conservative party ever having given back a donation.
    Mr. Hoyle: No, not that we know of, but then, of course, the Conservatives are not very good at publishing records of any kind.
    Let us consider Mr. Asil Nadir and his friends in the Conservative party. We know that he is charged with theft and fraud to the value of £30 million. We also know that he jumped bail of £3·5 million. I wrote to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), to tell him that I intended to raise certain points. I am sorry that he is not here today. It is rumoured that, quite apart from the loan of a Volvo, he dined with Mr. Nadir on the Saturday before Mr. Nadir left the country on the following Tuesday. I would have been very interested to learn from the hon. Member for East Hampshire what they discussed over that dinner.
    I find it very surprising that the newspapers state that the hon. Member for East Hampshire has complained that Polly Peck was undermined by MI6. Having served on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which examined the supergun affair, I am not too surprised about that claim. However, it is astonishing that the person who is rumoured to have made that accusation is still a Minister responsible for security in Northern Ireland. That is rather amazing.
    I agree that the names of the other people involved should be known. One of those who spoke and wrote on behalf of Mr. Nadir unfortunately cannot be with us today—the President of the Board of Trade. I would have liked to hear why the President of the Board of Trade had lunch with Mr. Morgan, who handles Mr. Nadir's PR. Mr. Morgan denies that they talked about Mr. Nadir, but the President of the Board of Trade said they did. What was there to hide when Mr. Morgan had to deny that they spoke about Mr. Nadir?
    I would have liked to ask the President of the Board of Trade why it has been decided not to strike Mr. Nadir off as being unfit to hold company office. I would also have liked to ask the President of the Board of Trade why, even though the Serious Fraud Office had been informed that Mr. Nadir might leave the country, he was able to fly away on a small plane without let or hindrance.
    There are many questions which should be answered in relation to that matter. However, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am prepared to sit down now if we are going to hear about the missing millions.
    The Conservative party has brought all this on itself. The Conservatives received secret funds and donations, not only from companies in this country, which are not recorded, but from people outside this country who do not have a right to vote here. I believe that that practice should be stopped.
    Why does not the Conservative party take up the offer that we have made—something with which hon. Members representing other parties would agree—and publish everything so that we know the source of all the donations? We would then know who is pulling the Conservative party's strings, and why, and how much those people are paying for the privilege of doing just that.
    5.42 pm
    Sir Norman Fowler: Frankly, that was a fair old ramble through the undergrowth. With respect to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), he asked me a number of questions, but he ended up providing the answers to them himself. When he referred to Lord Hanson and Lord Laing, he raised the issue of two people who were actually first honoured by Labour Governments. That seems to be the entire answer to the point that he was making.
    As the House will know, for the past 12 months I have been the chairman of the Conservative party organisation. In addition, as the House will know, I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee for almost two hours last week. I will therefore seek to be brief in setting out my position.
    Let me start by dealing with the allegation in The Guardian this morning to which reference has already been made and which has received a great deal of publicity. It was alleged that the Conservative party received millions of pounds in cash from the Saudi Arabian royal family and that the donation followed a meeting in London between a Cabinet Minister and prominent Saudis with close links to the Saudi Government and royal family.
    That allegation was picked up by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). In the article she is quoted as saying that she would raise the matter in today's debate. She did not raise it until I raised it with her.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Norman Fowler: No, I want to finish this point.
    That allegation and charge has been proved to be—[Interruption.] Okay, that charge has now been countered and it is said that it is totally untrue. I want to quote the statement made by the Saudi ambassador to the United States. He said:
    "All the allegations in The Guardian's article are untrue and wholly without foundation. No such meeting took place. The allegations are baseless and harmful fabrications and, in view of the serious nature of these allegations, His Royal Highness the Ambassador is taking legal advice as to the appropriate course of action to allow him to obtain a full retraction and an apology."
    That is the position and I believe that it would now be right for the right hon. Member for Derby, South to dissociate herself from the matter.
    Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a great deal of the fact that I did not raise the issue during the debate—
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Withdraw.
    Mrs. Beckett: There is no need for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to bellow. There is nothing that I need to withdraw. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) wanted to know why I did not raise the matter in my speech. I had intended to do that, but before I reached that point, the right hon. Gentleman had already intervened. What I said in the press, what is certainly true and what I have no need to withdraw is that very serious allegations had been made and I said that I would raise them or see that they were raised in the debate so that there could be an opportunity for those allegations to be refuted or confirmed. What is there to withdraw in that?
    Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Lady really cannot be as naive as that—if she is, she should not be the deputy leader of the Labour party. She is giving credence to that kind of rumour and allegation. In investing in and putting her name to the matter, she knows perfectly well what she is doing and she should have dissociated herself from it.
    Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman is missing something that the Government have missed throughout the debate. The point is that the Government could disprove all of this by publishing the accounts. The issue arises from the fact that a number of people, including those in the Saudi embassy, have said that this took place. We cannot know whether that is true, but we do know that the Government make a distinction between Governments giving money and the money given by individuals. In the Saudi case, individuals may have been directly involved in that money because of the peculiar monarchic situation in Saudi Arabia. That is why the only way out of the trap is for the Government to publish the figures.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Again, that is exactly the kind of smear and rumour that we have heard all afternoon. I challenge the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to make those comments outside the House. He knows that he would not then have the privilege that he has inside this place.
    Mr. Soley rose—
    Sir Norman Fowler: No, I am not giving way again on this point.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Norman Fowler: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will not give way. I call Sir Norman Fowler.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Let me make it absolutely clear: the Conservative party did not, does not and will not accept donations from foreign Governments. That also applies to royal families arid to the agents of the Governments and royal families. f hope that I have made that position absolutely clear.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Norman Fowler: No, I will not give way again.
    There have also been other allegations made today notably, on television and radio programmes, by—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will have heard, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would reply to me. He has not replied to two of the questions that I have asked—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have a reply—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knew full well when he rose to his feet that that was not a point of order. I call Sir Norman Fowler.
    Sir Norman Fowler: I have set out the position as clearly as I conceivably can. I certainly do not intend to give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) again. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, but his hon. Friends are not helping me to do so.
    Sir Norman Fowler: I think that they were saying goodbye to the hon. Member for Workington. Some hon. Gentlemen we miss in the House; others we miss perhaps a little less.
    Other allegations have been made today, notably on television and radio programmes, by the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). At times, they appeared to repeat allegations that first appeared in the magazine, Business Age, and which resulted in legal action being taken against that publication. More to the point, however, that legal action has caused the magazine to retract its allegations, issue an apology and to agree damages. I hope that that will be noted by the Opposition.
    Mr. Frank Dobson: We are in some difficulty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Absolutely".] We have been told by the Secretary of State for Employment that Business Age has apologised. The chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), has just said the same. In between those two announcements, however, I received a message that informed me that their announcement is untrue.
    Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it wrong for Opposition Members to repeat untrue allegations under the privilege of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it had been wrong, I would have ruled those hon. Members out of order.
    Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will find that the information that he has just given to the House is inaccurate.
    Business Age appears to be the well from which Opposition Members draw their allegations. That magazine has also alleged that the Conservative party has £200 million salted away in secret accounts overseas. [Laughter.] That allegation has been widely reported on radio, television and the newspapers. I must tell the House and, in particular, my right hon. and hon. Friends that I sometimes wish that that allegation were true. That allegation was so daft, however, that we have offered a 10 per cent. finder's fee to anyone who is able to find that elusive £200 million. Needless to say, we have heard nothing further.
    It is important to consider the serious nature of the point at issue. As chairman of the Conservative party, I am, in common with my predecessors, committed, first, to the voluntary financing of political parties. It is the voluntary commitment which gives a political party its strength. That means that a strong party must have a large, nationwide membership.
    One point that has not been understood in the debate, and which should be emphasised, is that the vast majority of the Conservative party's income is raised at the constituency level. In 1992–93, we estimate that the overall

    207
    income for the party was £26 million, of which £18 million was raised and spent in the constituencies and only £8·3 million was raised centrally.
    It is the central organisation and central fund raising which have attracted all the public attention. It is important to recognise, however, that the Conservative party has no national membership income, unlike the Labour party and the Liberal party. All membership subscriptions to our party are paid locally to constituency associations.
    Mr. Hoyle rose—
    Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that the House has just about heard enough from the hon. Gentleman.
    I do not deny the need for rules to govern the way in which money is raised. I obviously accept that. The most fundamental of all those rules must be that money does not buy political power.
    Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
    Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not give way.
    The real scandal would be if donations bought control over candidate selection, control over the leadership election and control over policy. That is why I find the Opposition motion so extraordinarily hypocritical, because everything that I have said applies not to the Conservative party, but to the Labour party.
    At the last election, the Labour party received three quarters of its funds from the trade unions. Trade union money buys the unions a 40 per cent. say in the selection of candidates, a 40 per cent. say in the selection of the leadership and a 70 per cent. say in party policy determined at party conference. As Tom Sawyer, the deputy general secretary of the National Union of Public Employees has said, "No say, no pay." That needs to be repeated again and again, because that reveals the position of the unions. I am not inclined to take lectures from the Labour party on this matter. If it wants reform, there is a great deal that it must and can do for itself.
    I am even less impressed by the argument for state funding. In a country where voting is not compulsory, it would be very curious to make it compulsory to donate to party-political campaigns.
    I am aware of the Short money used inside Parliament, but it would be a radical extension of current practice to give money for party activities out in the country. Obviously there are practical objections to such a system. Rules would have to be devised to govern how the money was divided and a bureaucracy would have to be established to check how that money was spent. How would those funds be divided? If it were on the basis of past votes, that would simply freeze the status quo. If it were given on the basis of the number of candidates fielded, that would simply encourage extremist candidates to stand.
    Above all, I do not believe that the public would support such a change to state funding, particularly when we are rightly seeking to put a check on public expenditure. The idea of compulsory taxpayer funding of the political parties is opposed by about 80 per cent. of the population—the vast majority are overwhelmingly opposed to it.
    Let me set out the mechanisms and principles that
    208
    govern the way in which the Conservative party raises money. In the past 12 months, I have set up a new management board that oversees spending in the same way as a board of directors might do in a public company. That board establishes accountability for our members and for all parts of the party. We are also in the process of setting up a new board of treasurers, which will be responsible for central fund-raising activities.
    Last week, I set out for the Select Committee some of the rules that govern our fund raising. For example, we refuse to accept any donation of which we do not know the source. We refuse to accept any donation that we have reason to believe contains illegally obtained money. We refuse to accept any donation to which strings are attached. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment dealt with that issue extremely well in his speech.
    I must repeat what I said to the Select Committee on the question of honours. Under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, which was introduced as a result of the abuses committed by the last Liberal Government, any attempt to meddle with honours awarded is illegal. Such an activity is not just wrong; it is illegal. An Act of Parliament exists to prevent such intervention and, of course, the Conservative party observes the law.
    I have listened to the Opposition's allegation about peerages, but the hon. Member for Warrington, North has destroyed their case with his own-goal revelations about Lord Hanson and Lord Laing. The first honours given to those individuals did not come from a Conservative Government, but from a Labour one. There is nothing in that allegation. We refuse to accept any money from foreign Governments. I have made it clear—
    Mrs. Barbara Roche rose—
    Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way.
    I have already dealt with the absurd report in The Guardian today, so I shall comment on one or two of the other suggestions that have been made. We have not received money from the Government of Kuwait, the Government of the People's Republic of China or any other Government whatever. As for the suggestion by Business Age that the Sultan of Brunei has given us money, the standard of journalism in that magazine leaves a certain amount to be desired. It describes Brunei as a tiny desert kingdom. Every atlas that I have seen shows that. far from being a tiny desert kingdom, Brunei is next to Borneo and the only sand there is on the beach. The standard of journalism in Business Age must be treated with a great deal of caution—much more caution than has been shown so far by Opposition Members.
    Within the rules that I have set out, we certainly accept contributions from public and private companies. I underline that, under the law, those contributions must be declared by the companies.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
    Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) questioned me for hours last week and I do not wish to continue that.
    The attitude of Labour Members is hypocritical. I have a copy of a letter—I sound like the shadow trade and industry spokesman—from the right hon. Member for

    209
    Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the Labour party's attitude in December 1992. It is to a company, B and Q, in which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has a great deal of interest. There was a complaint which concerned a fund-raising ball held at the Conservative party conference. The right hon. Member for Copeland says:
    "I recognise that some of this publicity was a result of comments made by my Parliamentary colleagues. I would like to make Labour's position clear. We recognise the need for business to communicate with politicians of all persuasions … The Labour party was delighted to welcome B and Q at our gala dinner at the Park Lane hotel in June. We recognised your objective in attending was to further your corporate needs. I am grateful for your support and I hope that it continues."
    That seems adequately to deal with the issue of B and Q.
    Apart from corporate donations, we receive voluntary contributions made by individuals from their own resources. They are given to the party on exactly the same basis as they are given to other parties. I agree entirely with what Lord Hailsham said on this matter:
    "It is the most basic right that what a man does with his money, like what he does with his vote, is a private affair. We defend it."
    In the Conservative party, no donor—large or small—receives any influence or favours in return for a donation. There are, therefore, no grounds to override the fundamental individual right to privacy.
    As far as Mr. Asil Nadir and his contributions are concerned, the House will know—I made this totally clear to the Select Committee on Home Affairs—that we do not comment on specific donations to the party; nor do we intend to do so. However, in view of the fact that information that we provided in 1991 to the administrators of Polly Peck International has been made public, I shall make the following facts clear.
    Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said last week, the Conservative party did not receive £1·5 million from Mr. Nadir. Over five years starting in October 1985, the party received a total of £440,000 and the last contribution was made in March 1990. Those donations were made not by Mr. Nadir personally but by Polly Peck International or Unipac Packaging Industries. We know of no further donations from Mr. Nadir or his companies.
    The donations were made at a time—this needs to be emphasised—when Polly Peck was regarded as a highly successful British company. I understand that the company made similar donations to organisations and bodies such as the Spastics Society, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Royal Opera House. The responsibility for disclosing those donations rested with Polly Peck.
    I understand that the then deputy chairman of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), wrote to the administrators, Touche Ross, in October 1991. He ended his letter by saying:
    "We have of course consulted our solicitors and have been advised that there is no legal obligation to provide you with the information you seek as regards to Polly Peck International plc unless you have obtained an order of the court requiring disclosure of the information concerned. However, the Conservative party is quite willing to assist you as administrator in this matter without that necessity. I do not know what the position is under Cypriot law, but for the same reason you will see the information included as to Unipac."
    Details of the contributions are then set out.
    210
    We never received a reply to that letter. There was silence from Touche Ross for the next 18 months. The issue was next raised when a copy of the information—I do not know whether it was a copy of the letter—was provided to the Opposition spokesman on trade and industry, the hon. Member for Livingston.
    There were new allegations in The Sunday Times, again quoting staff from Touche Ross. At no stage have we been contacted by Touche Ross since our 1991 letter. The result is that, yesterday, I asked our lawyers to contact Touche Ross directly. One hour before entering the Chamber, I finally received a letter, 601 days after our first communication.
    Obviously, we will now consider that letter. I do not believe that any reasonable person will expect me to give a snap reaction and response to it. [Interruption.] It is a serious point. If the matter was so urgent, Touche Ross should have come back to us quickly, rather than after 600 days. To avoid any doubt, let me make this clear. If we receive proof from Touche Ross or any other source that the money we received was stolen, we will return it. I make that position absolutely clear.
    We now need to deal not with unsubstantiated allegations and unsourced press reports. We need evidence instead of pure assertion. I hope that Touche Ross will start to deal with us and not pursue the matter through the newspapers.
    Mr. Dennis Turner rose—
    Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way.
    I have set out the position of Mr. Asil Nadir fully and clearly. Let me make this clear: we will return the money if it was stolen. I hope that the Labour party makes such a pledge regarding the tens of thousands of pounds that the Leader of the Opposition admitted were received from Mr. Robert Maxwell. That issue needs to be addressed. I realise that the figure that has been given is £31,000. We want to check carefully whether that is the complete figure. If the money received from Mr. Nadir is tainted, it seems that the money received from Mr. Maxwell is covered in black tar.
    Mr. Dobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Tory party ever received any money from Robert Maxwell? If everything that Robert Maxwell did was tainted, why did the right hon. Gentleman, when he was the Secretary of State for Employment, sell to Maxwell the Professional and Executive Register at a time when it was rumoured that higher bids were received from other companies? The hon. Gentleman did not deny those rumours.
    Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman once again shows his total lack of integrity. The allegation that he has just made is simply untrue.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: It is true.
    Sir Norman Fowler: It is not true. It is specifically untrue. I challenge the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to provide evidence to support what he says. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand how sales take place in government. Ministers do not make those decisions. However, for avoidance of doubt and from my own clear memory, Mr. Robert Maxwell did not appear in one way or the other in the matter.

    211
    In my recollection, the offer that was made to the Department of Employment was by far the highest offer. The hon. Gentleman seeks to make yet another slur. It is slur after slur.
    Mr. Dobson: If the right hon. Gentleman's recollection is so clear, why did not he challenge the doubts cast at the time in newspapers such as The Times about whether the Maxwell bid was the highest offer? If he thought that Robert Maxwell was so monstrous a person and that his companies were so unreliable, why did he say:
    "We were impressed by their plans to make the company the flagship of the new employment services division of their business"?
    Why did he say:
    "There is no doubt that they have the expertise and commitment to give the Professional and Executive Register the start in the private sector that we want for it"?
    Can he confirm now that it is entirely closed down?
    Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is a disgrace not only to his Front Bench but to standards in politics. He continues to repeat things that he knows are untrue. He knows that he is in the hole and is protesting and protesting. What the hon. Gentleman says is untrue. I hope that when he comes to think about it, if he ever comes to think about these things, he will withdraw the suggestion that he has made.
    The Conservative party's position is precisely this. Unlike the Labour party, we do not believe that the taxpayer should be forced to bail out political parties.
    Mrs. Beckett: We should have the record straight in the House. The right hon. Gentleman has already referred to Short money—taxpayers' money which goes to the Opposition political parties. It is also on the record that public money from the taxpayers goes to the Conservative party to fund the advisers and appointees that it has in government. The Conservative party receives at the minimum, and on published figures, substantially more than the Labour party. I believe that it receives about four times as much as the Labour party. Those appointees of the Conservative party advise the Government in supplement to Government advisers.
    Sir Norman Fowler: I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but I am not sure whether it takes the debate much further. We are debating how much further down the road to state funding we want to go. There is a clear divide between the positions of the two parties. The right hon. Lady wants state funding. The Conservative party does not want state funding. I believe that the public overwhelmingly do not want state funding.
    Unlike the Labour party, we do not sell votes at our party conference to our donors. Unlike the Labour party, we have always had a system of one member, one vote in the selection of our candidates. We have had such a system literally for decades. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, many of us are here today because at the selection meeting our chief competitor was thought to be backed by central office. There is no question whatever about that.
    Unlike donors to the Labour party, our donors do not wield block votes at our party conference or decide the leadership of the party. When the Leader of the Opposition sought election to his present position, he sent
    212
    his aides around union conference after union conference. That is not remotely the position in the Conservative party.
    There is one true scandal in the funding of British political parties. It is the funding of the Labour party, a party which has sold its soul to the highest trade union bidder. The Labour party is basically undemocratic. It is union-dominated. Its constitution is one of reasons why it has stayed on the Opposition Benches for 14 years and why it will stay on those Benches for a great deal longer.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: This has been an interesting debate so far. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) had some interesting things to say about the continuing negotiations on the Polly Peck donations received by the Conservative party. He said that he was in negotiation with lawyers and with Touche Ross.
    If the right hon. Gentleman is in any doubt that any of the £400,000 to which he referred is under suspicion, the right course is for him to pay that money into court and leave it in the hands of the court until such time as a legal resolution has been arrived at for the proper disposition of that money. If he did that, he would be seen to be completely above suspicion.
    The right hon. Gentleman announced that he had received a letter from Touche Ross. It is certainly strange that it took Touche Ross so long to reply. Something seems to be seriously wrong there. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted a course of action that was above suspicion and would certainly satisfy me that the Conservative party was doing everything possible to ensure that it was beyond any controversy or complaint, he would pay that money into court forthwith.
    I wish to make a short speech because I do not want to be part of the party political harangue that has been going on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Indeed, it would be easy for me to be sanctimonious. I assure hon. Members that I shall not do that. At least the last time that the Liberal party was in a position to deploy honours we were open about it. We had price lists. There were price tags on honours. The law has been changed since then. I certainly accept the assurances by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about the various stories that have been flying around. I am pleased that he gave them.
    It is time that we drew a line under some of the allegations, charges and counter-charges that have been made, because they do not do the process of politics much good. The sooner that we turn to the important aspects of the matter, the better. It may be a controversial position to take, but I am willing to draw a line in the sand—the Saudi Arabian or any other sand—about what has happened in the past. If the House turned its mind to what we could do collectively and across the party political divide to re-establish public confidence in financing of the political parties, it would be all to the good.
    Of course the funding of political parties is a matter of public interest. It is a fundamental element of a democratic process that the way in which parties finance themselves and the uses and sources of that money are transparent. I suggest to the House that that is not the case at present—for a variety of reasons. We have an ancient and antiquated unwritten constitutional system which tends to land us in problems when crises arise suddenly out of the

    213
    mists and take us by surprise. We discover that there are anomalies. We make the constitutional changes as we go along.
    Liberal Democrat Members have been saying for longer than we can remember that we should examine the whole constitutional machinery. Such an examination would include the way in which parties are financed. Dare I say it, it may even include consideration of whether there is a role for the state in party political financing.
    There is an argument for that and we should perhaps examine the way in which sister democracies such as Canada and Germany operate. There are some lessons to be learnt there. The German system is not perfect, because it encourages central parties to get fat, bloated and lazy. There is so much money swilling around that they do not need to go out and fight for members and donations.
    We should encourage people to give. The more who give money voluntarily towards the political process, the healthier it will be.
    I must at that point enter a caveat, and I address it particularly to Conservative Members. There must be a threshold on individual and corporate donations above which matters become dangerous. I do not know whether the line should be drawn at £2,000, £5,000 or £10,000. Once we get into five and even six-figure numbers, the level of money could distort the balance—I am not making accusations but arguing purely in terms of principle—because any political party would have to respond.
    Politics is today an extremely expensive business, with multi media technology, and propaganda costs a lot of money. I am in favour of propaganda, because it is an open and honest part of the process. We must all tell our tales and get our policies across. The media are becoming more complicated and pervasive. While that creates the need to raise more money, we must resolve to generate it in an open and honest way.
    The time has come for us to consider two simple changes. The Government should sponsor bilateral talk with all the parties in the House to see if we can reach agreement on two simple questions. The first is about the level of individual and corporate donations above which we should have to solicit the approval of the donors to make their identities known.
    That would not cost anybody anything. People may argue that it would frighten donors off, but, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, it is a free country and people can do as they wish with their money. We should encourage them to put money into politics.
    Consider, for example, David Sainsbury. Nobody could complain that a man such as he—some may say that he was misguided about the way in which he deployed the money, but that is a separate question—should not have contributed in the way he did. When the SDP started, he gave it a foot on the first rung of the ladder, which it was perfectly legitimate for him to do. He did it openly, and it had the result of which we are aware. We should not discourage such giving. Indeed, we should encourage it.
    But if we are to go that far, the Government of the day should be given protection against the suspicion that will always exist if there is not a threshold governing big money players in the game. Otherwise, there will always be the conspiracy theory. If the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was doubtful about conspiracy theories, and as he listened to the Labour party's Front-Bench speakers, he must have appreciated that there would always be people looking for excuses to run scare stories. That is bad for
    214
    business. It should not be impossible for the parties to agree a figure, or at least to discuss the question of individual donations.
    There is a second, quintessentially simple move that I suggest that we consider seriously. Companies are today no longer easily and readily under the control of their shareholders. I do not complain about that, because companies have become complicated and sophisticated organisations. Company law is behindhand in achieving a proper relationship between shareholders and company managements, but that is a subject for another debate.
    If companies, particularly big firms, engage in substantial donations—I do not consider £2,000 to £5,000 in the form of annual or other donations to be untoward, because such amounts do not skew the balance of influence in any political organisation—company law should ensure that their managements must secure the sanction of their shareholders before engaging in donations running into four and five-figure sums.
    Those two changes would not be massive or involve great statutory controls or large Acts of Parliament. They would enable us to move to a point from which innuendos could be dealt with. Everything would be in the public domain, open and above board.
    If we do not take such action, there will he a danger—again, I do not make a party political point, though it is an important aspect that particularly the Conservative party must bear in mind—that any party that has been in power for three, four or more terms will start to run up against the charge of nepotism in relation to placements on party and public bodies, hospital trusts and so on. After a party has been in power for a number of terms, there is bound to be a suspicion that insiders will get control, and that party advisers, pollsters and pundits will take charge of the party apparatus.
    That danger is made worse by commercial aspects for which the Government are not responsible. I refer to cases such as Barlow Clowes, Maxwell, Lloyd's and the Guinness affair. Such cases erode public confidence. More than anything else in today's debate, I am nervous lest such matters fare badly in the country's high streets, with people saying, "They are all in it, up to their necks."
    While I do not believe that to be true, we must accept that there are problems. They will get worse, and they are always worse for the Government party, no matter what is discussed in terms of party political finance. It particularly applies to a Government who have been in power for as long as the Conservatives have held office.
    That is why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has a heavy responsibility on his shoulders. I appreciate that he has problems. He must get his management right, and he must find £8·3 million for next year or his party will grind to a halt. Frankly, I could run a handsome party for £8·3 million. There is an argument for keeping parties lean, cheap and cheerful, as is the case with the modern Liberal Democrats.
    As I say, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues bear a heavy responsibility for ensuring that they get the balance right. In that connection, the right hon. Gentleman can ignore much of the nonsense that has been thrown at him from across the Floor of the House today. But he cannot ignore it all, and he must give serious thought to the issues that I have raised. I hope he will do that.
    My hon. Friends and I are faced with Hobson's choice today. I have great difficulty with the Labour motion,

    215
    especially as it invites us to support some sort of Labour charter. That is testing our patience a long way. We do not have much choice. I wish to make it clear that—subject to what the Leader of the House, who is persuasive, may say in reply to the debate; he may yet persuade me to the contrary—I do not want anybody to read anything into any support that we may give to the Labour motion. Certainly nobody should read into it our support for a Labour charter, because large chunks of it are nonsense.
    6.27 pm
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: As I listened to the extremely reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) I could not help but feel that there are many lessons that we might yet learn from the sale of political honours by his party in times past. I am pleased to know that all of that is in the past and that, at any rate from his point of view, we are now reasonable and understanding of one another.
    As the House knows, the Select Committee on Home Affairs decided towards the end of last year to inquire into the funding of political parties. Our terms of reference were to examine the case for and against the state funding of political parties, the methods by which parties should be financed, the adequacy of the money that is raised for the purposes that are needed, the desirability of controls over the sources of finance and other statutory requirements that might be placed on donors or recipients. It was reassuring to have the Liberal party treasurer state in evidence that we received yesterday that, placed in the same political position, he would have been delighted to have accepted £440,000 from Asil Nadir.
    We were getting on with our work quietly and sensibly when we approached the silly season, which coincided with the upturn in the economy, which greatly irritated Labour, the criticism of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) from within and without his party, and the drying up of income to the Labour party, to which reference has been made. There was a row about one man, one vote in the Labour party and the fact that, if there is one man, one vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "One person."] Please forgive me. I should say that if there is one man/woman, one vote, the trade unions might get nasty and forget their historic obligations to the Labour party.
    They might remember what Tom Sawyer from the National Union of Public Employees told us, "No say, no pay". They might remember the words of John Edmonds of the GMB, when he said. "It's our party". They might remember what Bill Morris, of the Transport and General Workers Union, said when he reminded the Labour party of the size of his union's donation—£1·5 million. The older of us will recall Arthur Scargill having to come to the Bar of the House to apologise for saying that if Labour Members supported by the National Union of Mineworkers did not deliver for that union, they would lose their sponsorship. The trade union movement provides 70 per cent. of Labour party funds, helps to choose candidates, and votes on policy and candidates. I might ask in passing, what business contributor to the Conservative party has those powers?
    Therefore, it is vital that Labour Members should raise the issue of state funding of political parties—the taxpayers' contribution. The trouble with the Labour
    216
    party is that, if it was popular with successful British industries and if the people who give it their votes raised money for it by contributions—as they do for the Conservative party to the tune of £17 million—we would not be having today's debate initiated by the Labour party. It is because the Labour party is so anti-business and anti-ordinary people that it has to raise money through the trade unions. If the trade unions take away that money, the Labour party will have to raise it from the taxpayer.
    I said that we were in the silly season because the Labour party is making itself look foolish by allowing itself to be associated with the rubbish in The Guardian about Saudi money. It is not remotely likely that the kings of Saudi Arabia would have an aeroplane, with its engines revving, full of used £5 notes ready to deliver to the Conservative party on the first day of the general election. I see that my right hon. Friend the chairman of the Conservative party is present. He will know that, if that had been the case, the party would not be £17 million in the red. It does no credit to The Guardian, which passes itself off as an organ of judgment and credibility, or to the Labour party, gleefully to take up such utter nonsense.
    It is silly to campaign about the sale of honours. There is not the slightest evidence to show that honours have been sold. The Labour party is certainly vulnerable on that issue. Asil Nadir must be bitterly disappointed that the £440,000 that he gave for the purchase of honours not only failed to buy him a knighthood, but resulted in him being prosecuted with such strength that he has fled the country and dare not face up to his responsibilities.
    The Labour party has shown not only silliness but an amazing gall. According to the party, Robert Maxwell gave only £31,000 or £43,000, plus £38,000. Yet he was a secretive man with a lot of companies into which he tucked a lot of money. He was a former Labour Member of Parliament and a dedicated Labour party supporter. He was secretive and generous. I wonder whether any Members of the Labour party can put their hand on their heart and say that that was the only money that that generous and secretive man ever gave to the party.
    The Labour party says that he gave only £31,000 or £43,000, plus £38,000. I should like to know whether any of his family ever gave any money to the party or whether any of his companies did so. I should like to know whether he gave the party gifts in kind or advertising space in the Daily Mirror or any of his other papers. I wonder whether any of the money that that corrupt man gave to the Labour party was returned to the creditors and pensioners. If it was not, I should like to know how soon it will be returned.
    Silliest of all is early-day motion 2184 calling on me to reconsider my position as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It states that I have admitted to
    "being involved in accepting free all expenses paid trips to the illegally occupied areas of Cyprus"
    to which the fugitive Nadir has fled from justice. I do not know whether to laugh or cry at the fact that that motion has the signatures of 100 honourable and supposedly sensible members of the Labour party.
    Of course, I admitted to being involved: I had to declare my visits in the Register of Members' Interests, as we all have to do in this place as hon. Members and as members of honourable organisations which operate with the sanction of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the

    217
    approval of Parliament. No allegation has been made that I took any money from Asil Nadir. I did not, I do not know him, I have never met him, I have never corresponded with him and, as far as I know, I have never been a beneficiary of his largesse. I was invited to visit north Cyprus by the Government of north Cyprus.
    Mr. Alan Meale: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
    The Government of north Cyprus, although not recognised by the international community, represent a grievously wronged people. It is strange that the Labour party, which claims to have concern for human rights, never speaks up for the Muslim Turkish minority in Cyprus. They once ruled Cyprus, together with the British, from 1571; the Greeks never did that. They did not slaughter 103 villages belonging to the Greeks in 1963, 1967 and 1973. If the British soldiers who lost their lives fighting against the Greek EOKA bid to unite Cyprus to Greece—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that this is not a debate about Cyprus.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: The early-day motion which has been tabled and which asks me to resign is all about Cyprus, but I do not wish to be irrelevant.
    Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your previous ruling. Contrary to what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) was saying, the early-day motion relates to Government foreign policy—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Early-day motions are nothing to do with the Chair.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I went to north Cyprus with some highly respected Labour Members of Parliament—the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) and for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—as well as with the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), and as well as my hon. Friends. By tabling such a silly motion, the Labour Members are shooting themselves in the foot because their own respected and highly reputable people came on that visit.
    If I am to resign because I accepted a sponsored visit—as do many hon. Members from both sides of the House—should they not be asking members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who continuously accept sponsorship from trade unions, the interests of which they are directly considering in the inquiry, to resign as well? I would not be so childish or silly to make that request of the hard-working Labour members of my Select Committee, but the motion shows how silly the Labour party is.
    Looking down the list of 101 Labour signatures I see to my astonishment that 58 of them are sponsored by the trade union movement. One of the signatories, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), has admitted visiting General Electric in Boeing, Cincinnati and Seattle. The costs of his visit were borne by companies including British Airways.
    218
    The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) declares an overseas visit in August and September 1992 to China, with accommodation and hospitality provided by the Chinese Government, although he paid for the travel himself.
    The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) made an overseas visit to Tokyo, Japan, as a guest of the World Parliamentarians' Conference for Support of the United Nations. I do not know where the money for that came from.
    The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) went to Colorado, United States of America, to visit a nuclear dry storage facility and that was funded by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) visited Cyprus. That was paid for by the Government of Cyprus, yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to sign the early-day motion requesting my resignation.
    The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) went to Libya, sponsored by the Libyan Government, and to Berlin, Senegal, Martinique and Libya again, visits, I think, in the main not paid for by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know the parliamentary word for hypocrisy, but if I did I would use it.
    The Home Affairs Select Committee will doubtless consider all those issues. It will consider whether taxpayers really want to fund political parties and what control a Government may or may not exert if it is the paymaster through the taxpayer of such funding. It will want to consider the level of donations, corporate giving and whether the law requiring disclosure of donations is sufficient.
    I should like to know, and no doubt the Select Committee will ask, whether the Labour party receives any corporate donations and, if so, if it will give us the names of those corporate donors. If it will not, why is it demanding that the Conservative party gives the names of its corporate donors?
    I should like to ask the Labour party what the item "high value donor activity" of £228,000 in its 1991 accounts means. I should like to know, and the Select Committee will no doubt ask, whether the Labour party believes that the freedom of the individual to decide what party he supports, whether by his vote or by his or her donations, should be removed, and whether the Labour party has become anti-civil liberties. I should like to know whether the Labour party believes that individuals should be forced to disclose their donations. I should like to know whether disclosure is practicable. The Select Committee will be asking those questions.
    Why cannot a donation to a political party be given through organisations so that the real donor is hidden? How many trade union employees work as full-time agents for the Labour party? How many trade union premises were used by the Labour party during the 1992 election? How many trade union vehicles were used? Was all that declared? How much Labour opinion research was done by the trade unions? No expenditure has been declared for that in the Labour party's accounts, so someone must have paid for it and it seems likely that it might have been the trade unions.
    The Home Affairs Select Committee went to Washington and we visited an office in order to see how high disclosure worked in the United States. A name, such as that of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), is typed in and reams of paper come out saying that he gave

    219
    $220,000 to the Republican party, $150,000 to the Democratic party, $100,000 here, $10,000 there, $5,000 there. The only people who go to those offices, where about 120 people work at state cost, are the researchers for the candidates standing against the incumbent congressman to see what dirt they can churn out. For my part, I do not think that the British taxpayer wants to spend that kind of money on that kind of research in order to pretend that there is open disclosure of contributions to parties.
    Mr. Meale: Perhaps in all his searches of company and political party records the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to examine those of Polly Peck and Asil Nadir to see whether his name and the payment for his accommodation during his recent visit to Cyprus appear there.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I have disclosed it, so it does not matter. I signed the Register of Members' Interests the moment I returned. If the hon. Gentleman had known about that register, he might not have put down such a silly early-day motion, nor got so many of his silly friends to sign it.
    I hope that the silly season will end soon and that the Select Committee will return to sensible, calm deliberations, settle down and remember that we have the least corrupt political system in the world.
    It is time that we stopped trying to pretend that we are a weak, vapid, failing nation which ought to be the laughing stock of the rest of the world. We are not. We are one of the great nations of the world. Other countries look to us for political probity, and the sooner that Opposition Members realise that the better it will be for Britain.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: For the greater part of his speech, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence) spoke not as the Chairman of an all-party Select Committee trying objectively to consider the subject before us, but as a partisan politician. However, as my starting point, I agree that there is relatively little corruption in our political system compared with what one reads about in, for example, Japan, or areas where there is a clear correlation between contributions to the leading party and public contracts. We are still relatively corruption-free.
    One of the bulwarks of that is our party system which ensures that Members of Parliament can, to a large extent, rely on their party for the funding of their campaigns, rather than on external donors. That is why the parties themselves must be above question.
    Some fear that the political culture in Britain is changing for the worse. Because of some highly publicised trials that have taken place during the past few years, there are strong fears about Britain's corporate structure. The same sleaze, which, alas, is well publicised within the City, might move over into our political system. There is also anxiety about the activities of certain lobbying organisations. But whether or not such fears are justified, this is a good time to learn the lessons of Asil Nadir and some of the revelations that have come to light and to try to alter our law and procedures accordingly.
    One of the sadder features of the good, tub-thumping, party speech of the Secretary of State for Employment was
    220
    that he did not seem to realise that there is a problem and that is worrying. Surely we can learn from the current revelations and build, or attempt to build, barricades to guard against the dangers and the personal conflicts of interest that are likely to arise for Governments as a result of financial contributions.
    There will always be temptations. The best guarantee against politicians falling into those temptations is openness. I commend to the House the dictum of the Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I hope that in all our political funding for all the parties we will be prepared to let in as much sunlight as possible in the hope that those who might otherwise be tempted will draw back and remember the fine political culture within which we have all been brought up.
    Dame Jill Knight: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great care. Does he feel that every penny donated to a political party should be governed by the rules that he has just advocated, or is he referring just to large sums of money donated for the purpose of obtaining influence? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a basic human right of anyone who has earned his money and has paid his taxes to make whatever contributions he wishes? Does not this apply to the small-time private individual seeking to advance his political belief through a political party?
    Mr. Anderson: I have set out a broad principle, which must be interpreted on the basis of reason. Certainly one would not want the widow of Cheltenham, who may or may not make contributions to the Conservative party, to be obliged to make such a disclosure. On the other hand, if Ross Perot were to give money to the Conservative party, it would be democratically wrong that there should not be disclosure so that the British public might make up their own minds. It should be clear that we are not in danger of being bought or of having conflicts of interest.
    There are two basic concerns, the first of which is foreign donations. When the Select Committee went to the United States it learnt that foreign donations are totally banned in that country. In the American system there is consensus, from right to left, that such donations are wrong. I am aware of the argument that people who believe in the free enterprise system should be allowed to make contributions as they wish. In respect of domestic matters I accept that principle, but in the case of foreign donations other important principles of our democracy are paramount. There is a real danger of conflict of interest.
    For a period of 10 years I had the honour to be a foreign affairs spokesman for my party. In that capacity, I dealt with questions relating to Hong Kong and with questions concerning Cyprus. I have no doubt at all about the personal integrity of those Front-Bench politicians with whom I dealt at that time, but one has to guard against conflicts of interest. In the case of Hong Kong, during the 1980s very sensitive issues were discussed by representatives of this country, representatives of Hong Kong and representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China. If it were known that senior Hong Kong business men were contributing massively to the funds of the Government party they would clearly be at least under temptation. There would be potential problems of conflict of interest.

    221
    The same goes for Cyprus. It is said that Asil Nadir gave money not just because he happened to believe in the free enterprise system, but because he was, rather vainly—vainly in the sense of personal vanity and in the sense of failure—hoping to gain a personal honour. It was said also that he was lobbying on behalf of the Government of north Cyprus. During the 1980s we were also trying to resolve the Cyprus problems. It is clear that, although it is a guarantor power, Britain did not at that time take any initiatives. I cast no aspersions at all about the personal integrity of Ministers who were responsible for British foreign policy. However, acceptance of money from Asil Nadir, who was lobbying on behalf of a government not recognised by any other country in the world, created the likelihood of a conflict of interests. In my judgment, these and other questions make it most undesirable for parties to accept contributions from foreign donors.
    The second concern arises in respect of contributions from private donors. What disclosure is reasonable in those circumstances? Business people are not always public-spirited. What is their motive in making contributions? Some people point to the very close correlation between knighthoods and contributions to the Conservative party. In that regard I make no particular point. Nor do I make any point about, for example, the drinks industry. I am strongly of the view that there should be random breath testing. Some people may say that the Government steadfastly refuse to accept the principle of random breath testing because of the very substantial, and increasing, contributions made to the Conservative party by the drinks-related industry. At least that is in the open. We know that the drinks industry makes massive and increasing contributions, as is its right. In this regard, I make no particular complaint.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. I represent what I consider to be the brewing centre of England and I have never had any representations from any brewer to the effect that I should oppose the random breath testing of drivers. In fact, I am strongly in favour of random breath testing. Although the hon. Gentleman may be suspicious of them, these large organisations, which undoubtedly give money to political parties, do not always seek to put pressure on those parties.
    Mr. Anderson: So be it.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: The brewers' interest in the Government's plans to break up their monopoly might be a better example. I wonder if any Conservative Members have had representations about that matter.
    Mr. Anderson: So far as I am able, I am relying on points of principle. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I shall not follow it up at this stage.
    I want to make the general point that, in a democracy, transparency is very important. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) asserted that, in a democracy, citizens have a right to make voluntary contributions. Some people may give to Oxfam, some to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and others to the Conservative party. But surely it is naive and simplistic to suggest that there is no difference between giving voluntarily to a charity with a specific objective and giving to a party which, in
    222
    government, can—in many cases does—adopt policies that may flow from such contributions. In the case of Asil Nadir, I regard as wholly naive the suggestion by the chairman of the Conservative party that if funds are proved to have been stolen they will be returned. What evidence would be sufficient? No numbered bank notes were transferred from Polly Peck into some Jersey offshore account. It is quite impossible to trace money that may have been stolen and then transferred into an offshore account, part of whose funds may have been illegally obtained. All that one can say is that some of the money is likely to be tainted. If, in respect of this matter, the Conservative party chairman had any honour he would repay funds that clearly are the subject of fraud. He cannot get away by saying that if it can be proved that the funds were stolen the money will be repaid. Such proof is impossible. Nadir may have believed in the free enterprise system, but he was doing much else.
    I return to a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. It is clear that, in respect of Maxwell, my own party is somewhat vulnerable. I make no attempt to dissemble in respect of that matter. However, I know of no member of the Labour party who has sought to lobby the Attorney-General in respect of members of the Maxwell family who face criminal prosecution. Surely alarm bells ring when seven Conservative Members—not just the constituency Member, in whose case one might understand such action—make representations on behalf of this gentleman to the Attorney-General, whose duty it is to make objective decisions in respect of prosecution. The fact that Nadir paid such substantial sums and the fact that there may have been other types of contribution indicate that something smells, that something is amiss in the British state.
    The Sunday Times—a paper that normally pulls its punches in respect of the Conservative party—has said that the Tory party took
    "stolen money from an ambitious crook who believed he was buying a favour".
    That was the paper's allegation. The Conservative party allowed itself, with its eyes open, to be led into a conflict of interests; it saw the danger and walked into it. I believe that that is wrong.
    Let me again quote Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Why does the Conservative party fear the sunlight? What has it to hide? In a democracy, why should not citizens know how their parties are funded and be allowed to make their own decisions?
    7 pm
    Mr. David Ashby: This is a sleazy debate initiated by a sleazy party, which is attempting to denigrate politics and democracy. The motion is not worthy of a great party. While our Prime Minister is in Copenhagen, successfully persuading the world's greatest nations to desist from creating an all-out massacre in Bosnia, what does the Labour party wish to debate? It wishes to debate the issue of whether donations to a party should be transparent—whether they should be disclosed. Moreover, it is going about it in a way that depends on rumours, sleaze, the bandying of names and the slinging of mud in the hope that it will stick.
    Various names have been flung—for instance, that of Asil Nadir. Last week, Labour was certain that the sum involved was £1·5 million. In the Select Committee on

    223
    Home Affairs, it was a Labour Member who happened to ask the chairman of our party whether he was not sure that other donations from Asil Nadir, of which he was unaware, might bring the total to £1·5 million. In fact, as the party chairman has said openly, the sum is £440,000.
    What has happened to politics in this country? We used to accept the word of Members of this honourable House. We did not ask them to give evidence on oath. What is happening to the Labour party? When someone says something openly to the House and states that it is a fact, Labour Members say, "We do not believe you. What about this, that and the other?" What they say is just sleaze and mud slinging, involving no truth and no backing. It shows how low they have sunk. Their performance in today's debate makes me feel ashamed of the House: I think that it is a disgrace.
    Conservative Members have flung around the name of Robert Maxwell. I think it disgraceful that we should raise such matters, because this is not what the debate should be about. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who has now left the Chamber, even mentioned the name of Ernest Saunders, in connection with something that he—a convicted man, whom no one would now believe—wrote in a book. I asked the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) whether she had read the Select Committee evidence, because I was present on the Terrace on the occasion in question. I remember telling Ernest Saunders that I thought the current takeover bid for Distillers absolutely stank. He stared at me in amazement.
    I was entirely right: the bid did stink, for all the reasons that subsequently emerged in the prosecution. Perhaps that is the way in which Ernest Saunders wants to gloss over the fact that Tory Members have spoken to him and asked for donations. If hon. Members want to believe anything, they should believe his book; but does it say anything about my having approached him and told him that his bid stank? It does not.
    Let us have an end to all the mud slinging. Allegations have been raised about the Sultan of Brunei; the chairman of our party has said that they are untrue. We do not accept money from foreign Governments, or from the families of foreign rulers. That should be the end of the matter. That is the way in which we behave and those are the standards of the House.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What about Michael Mates?
    Mr. Ashby: I do not know the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but he is a newcomer to the House. I have been here for 10 years and I can tell him that being a Member of Parliament carries great dignity. Our word is our bond.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No hon. Member may voice, from a sedentary position, the Christian name and surname of another hon. Member. If the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) wishes to intervene, he should stand up and do so; otherwise, I should be grateful if he would keep his thoughts to himself.
    Mr. Ashby: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is honour and dignity in British politics; there is truth and honesty. Let us have no more of this sleaze. Let us start behaving in the way that the world expects.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ashby: I will, if the hon. Gentleman tells me his constituency.
    Mr. Prentice: Pendle. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it was honourable for the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) to give a watch to the fugitive Asil Nadir, inscribed with the legend "Don't let the buggers get you down"?
    Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman should address that query to the hon. Member in question, not to me. I do not know the circumstances; I am simply saying that, when someone says something in the Select Committee or the House, it is the truth. We do not lie in the Chamber, or in Select Committees. When things have been said in Select Committees, we do not then turn round and suggest that the person who said them was lying—or was not telling the truth, or was not being accurate. Other such phrases seem to have become current in the House. That is not the way in which we behave.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that it denigrates the standing of the House and that of all hon. Members on both sides of the House when such suggestions are continually bandied about, although they have been clearly denied?
    Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What Labour Members are doing in this debate is fundamental to democracy. They are trying to ridicule the Conservative party and, in so doing, are ridiculing themselves. They have given the impression that all politics are as filthy dirty as theirs. What we have seen today and in the disgrace of the past few weeks is the filth and dirt of the Labour party, not that of the Conservative party.
    I have been closely associated with Italy and I have just come back from a trip to Peru, where I examined human rights and all the issues in which Labour believes—issues in which I believe as well; we have that in common. I found that, in those countries, the British political system was highly regarded. We have the respect of the whole world. In Peru, the system had broken down because of a total lack of respect for the political set-up.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ashby: Let me finish. The Peruvian president had emerged from behind, rather like Ross Perot, with no knowledge of politics and no political backing. He had been virtually unheard of a fortnight before the election. Having emerged as president, he looked around at the political scene. All the political parties had been denigrated and were in chaos. He rejected them and turned to the army. The world said, "No, that is not good enough." He then tried to return to a democracy. I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) understands that I am not suggesting that the system in Peru is right. I am trying to say that if we go along this road, we are creating that sort of chaos.
    Mr. Winnick rose—
    Mr. Ashby: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

    225
    We also see chaos in Italy. The political parties have behaved in a way that is right, but there have been attacks and counter-attacks and the political system is disintegrating. We are travelling in that direction and that would be dreadful.
    We have heard many innuendos about Asil Nadir. There are enough lawyers in the Labour party to know what the law is. They know what is legal or illegal, but they continue to talk about illegal funding. There is no illegal funding. If the board of a company agrees that a donation should be made to a political party, and that political party accepts the donation, it is legal.
    Mr. Winnick rose—
    Mr. Ashby: Let me finish my point.
    It is up to the board of directors to declare it in the accounts. If it is not declared, the funding is not illegal but the lack of declaration is. There are some very good lawyers in the Labour party and I have great respect for them, but they continually say that it is illegal money. It is not. It is illegal if it has not been authorised by the board of directors and, in those circumstances, it would have to be returned. If it was in excess of any authority or the company was bankrupt, it may be illegal. I do not know enough about bankruptcy because I am a criminal lawyer.
    It has been suggested time and again by the Labour party that the Conservative party is blacker than black and the Labour party is whiter than white. If Labour Members had read some of the evidence of the Select Committee, they would have seen the evidence of an academic, Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky, who told us that all three major parties refuse to disclose individual donations. He said that it is hypocritical—I am trying to recall his words accurately because I am not allowed to quote from the document—for any party to throw stones in respect of this matter. He told us that during his research he went from party to party asking for a list of its largest donors. They all said no. He said that he went to Walworth road and was told that it had not hitherto disclosed the names of individual donors. Where is the argument? It is utter hypocrisy for the Labour party to suggest that it allows the names of individual donors to be given.
    Miss Joan Lestor:: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ashby: If Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky was lied to, I should be happy to give way to any Opposition Member who will say that the Labour party provides the names of donors. We will find out the answer tomorrow when we hear the evidence.
    Miss Lestor: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the state of politics and what is coming across from this debate. I am a sponsored member of a trade union. It is not a secret because it is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Anyone can read in the accounts of any trade union how the Labour party receives money from trade unions because it is public knowledge and the Labour party publishes what it receives from the trade union movement. Conservative Members have made much of this because they know how much we get. Therefore, why is it wrong or undesirable for the Conservative party, in the same way, to publish the amount of money that it receives in donations from companies? I fail to understand that. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, it is
    226
    nothing to do with small individual donations. Why is the Conservative party so opposed to making public what we already make public and which the trade union has to make public by law? That is the difference between us.
    Mr. Ashby: It has to be disclosed by law if one is sponsored by a trade union. It is important because it has to be registered in the Register of Members' Inter ests. We all know that we have to do that. That is very different from donations given freely to a political party.
    Miss Lestor: By companies?
    Mr. Ashby: Yes, by companies. We have heard enough about the nature of political sponsorship. That sort of donation has a tag on it and I have seen those tags used in the Chamber. Members of various unions get together and do what their union bids them do in the Chamber. That is wrong and I have often felt that such hon. Members are not truly independent. Donations to the Conservative party are independent of individual Members. There is no company that says, "Because we have donated £5,000 to the Conservative party we should have 30 per cent. of the votes." There is no company that says that is because it has donated £10,000, it should have a percentage of the votes in choosing a candidate or a percentage of the vote at conference. That is the difference.
    We must think about whether there should he disclosure. Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky told us that although disclosure is good in theory it would not work in practice. He told us that it does not work in the United States, Germany or Italy. That is the sort of evidence which we have been hearing and which we hope to continue to hear in the Select Committee.
    I do not want to continue much longer, but the Select Committee on Home Affairs has been undertaking a serious and important study. I supported that study, together with Labour Members, because I felt that there should he an inquiry into the funding of political parties. I thought that it was time that we looked into the question of funding to see which way we should go. I supported that; I was perhaps the one member of my party who did so. I hoped that we would have a serious discussion and hear evidence that would be helpful and useful to us from academics, the parties and other interested people, so that we could produce a report that would be far better than the sort of charter that has been flung across the table by the Opposition. I hoped for a report that would reveal deep thought and have all-party support—a very good report that everyone would consider.
    I am sorry to say that our Committee deliberations have been rather hijacked by Opposition members of the Committee. They have taken them as an opportunity to do exactly the same as we have seen them doing in the Chamber. There has been innuendo, sleaze, rumour and disgraceful behaviour and a refusal to believe people—the sort of behaviour that is not worthy of an hon. Member. This is a very sad day for us, because I really hoped for a good, worthy report.
    I started off in the Committee leaning towards disclosure. I felt that it would be a good thing for political parties to disclose donations above a certain level. I was not sure what that should be; I wanted to hear evidence as to whether it should be £100, £500, £1,000 or £5,000. I did not know whether it should apply only to companies, or to individuals and companies. I wanted to hear the evidence

    227
    and consider whether it was the right direction in which to go. I had an open mind, but I was leaning towards disclosure.
    I have seen in the Chamber today and over the past few days and weeks what use is made of information. That information is used only to dig dirt, for sleaze and smears, and to behave dishonourably. And now I say that only over my dead body will I accept in the report a statement that there should be disclosure. That information is wanted for all the wrong reasons, not for the right ones.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I make a plea for concise speeches. A great many hon. Member wish to speak.
    7.22 pm
    Mr. Chris Mullin: It was my idea—whether it was a good or a bad one, I am not sure—that the Select Committee should consider the financing of political parties. At the time, the Conservative members affected boredom. One of them said how difficult it would be for the public to take us seriously if we wasted our time on this issue. But, after they had affected boredom for 40 minutes, it became absolutely clear that, far from being bored, they were riveted by the subject. One of them told me that they were afraid that we would start asking where their money came from.
    I am sorry that that is the way that the inquiry has gone, because this has been a disappointing debate. I particularly regret the contribution of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), and indeed that of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). I thought that they were disappointingly partisan. There is a bigger issue at stake if one is a democrat, and one or two speakers have touched upon it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that our political culture was changing for the worse, and so it is. It is regrettable that, in our political life, money is now a greater feature of how a general election or by-election campaign is run, or how a party is funded. The more money that is required, the more dubious those resources become.
    That is not a party political point. It affects all three main parties when they are in government. The Liberals, at least, are straightforward about it. Mention has been made today of the lavender list, and the name "Robert Maxwell" has been chucked around the Chamber. I do not think that that does the Labour party any credit. Why not be straightforward about it, because then people will start to take us seriously on the general principle that is at stake?
    Any party in government is vulnerable to the charge that it is making decisions on the basis of vested interests. If the vested interests are secret, the party is even more vulnerable to that charge. It is a fact of life that one of the great mysteries of British politics is how the Conservative party is funded. It is a mystery not only to the British public at large, but also to most Conservative party members.
    The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is rightly agreeing with me, is one of the democrats in the House, and it is always a pleasure to find myself in agreement with him. I know that there are other hon. Gentlemen who believe that the present state of
    228
    affairs cannot continue, because it is tainting the whole political process. We are all politicians and, whatever our party views, we have one thing in common: we care about how politicians are perceived outside the House.
    During the course of this debate, I have been wondering whether members of the public listening to our deliberations today will feel better or worse about politicians and our political process. I am afraid that, after hearing all the speeches, with some honourable exceptions, they will feel worse, because the longer this kind of agonising goes on, the more our political process will be demeaned.
    I will not get involved in trading the sort of insults that have been traded today. Quite enough has been said about who contributes what, and in what circumstances. I will not waste any time on that, but will merely draw the attention of the House to one or two principles that should be upheld in a democracy—and we all want to live in a democracy.
    First, is it right in a democracy for any political party to be funded by donors whose names are secret, as are the amounts that they contribute? Powerful people always want to protect their interests; they do not do things out of the kindness of their hearts; they do them because they want influence. The only medicine for that is daylight.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East quoted a United States Supreme Court judge. That is the best solution. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West said that, after listening to today's deliberations, he had come to the conclusion that there should not be any disclosure. It is up to him how he justifies getting back on his own party political side. I was disappointed by that, because, as he said, he was one of those on the Committee who thought that it would be a good idea to investigate this subject. If he is concerned about the general effect of the political process, the answer is not more, but less, secrecy. That is surely the road down which most sensible people outside the House would expect us to be going.
    The question of state aid has been raised. It was not one of my motives, when I made my suggestion to the Select Committee, that we should have state aid for political parties. Unlike other members of the Select Committee, I am not prepared to state my conclusions before I have heard the evidence, but I am so far unpersuaded that that is the solution to our problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that we should be concerned for the future rather than the past. Like him, I am prepared to draw a line in the sand, the jungle or wherever it happens to be, and look to the future.
    There are one or two things on which there ought to be unanimity among democrats in the House and on the Committee. The first is that there must be proper disclosure of those who contribute to whatever political party.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I am the first to admit that the hon. Gentleman has conducted himself with great reasonableness during the inquiry into funding. Does he agree that it is a pity that the Opposition have chosen to have this debate today, before the Labour party has given its evidence to the Select Committee?
    Would it not have been better for this debate, if it were to take place at all, to have taken place after we had heard from the Labour party's witnesses? The three main

    229
    political parties would then have given their evidence, and we could then have reached conclusions and informed this debate rather better.
    Mr. Mullin: It might have been better, but the fact is that we are having this debate today. It has been prompted not so much by the Select Committee's deliberations as by the departure of Mr. Nadir to northern Cyprus. I do not have any influence over his timetable. We are having this debate today, so we should try to address the issues today. Disclosure is fundamental, and it is not a controversial issue in other democracies. One of the puzzling things is that issues that have been tremendously controversial here do not appear to be controversial in other countries.
    The second principle is that company donations should be placed on a footing similar to that for donations from other organisations, such as trade unions. That point should not be controversial. I shall probably get myself into trouble somewhere for saying that I am not all that disappointed that a Conservative Government passed legislation that obliged trade unions to hold a ballot on political funds every 10 years. That does not give me much trouble, and I believe that it was a healthy move.
    As it turned out—I have no doubt that it was not the Government's intention—it was healthy for the trade unions. The trade union leaders had to get out and about among their members, and justify the political funds. They did so successfully, to the extent that one or two trade unions that had not had a political fund voted to have one. We should be grateful to the Conservative party to that extent.
    Another simple principle is that there should be a limit on the size of donations. In the United States—I hope that hon. Members will correct me if I have got it wrong—the limit is about $250. We can have a debate about what the size should be. Some favour limits of between £5,000 and £10,000. That is not realistic. I favour some limit, although I do not lay down precise figures. We all have different figures in our heads. However, there should be a limit on the size of donations.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The $250 is the figure that must be disclosed.
    Mr. Mullin: I am sorry, I was wrong. In the United States, the figure of $250 applies to what should he disclosed. I thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The figure that must be disclosed should be about $250, although we shall need to debate exactly what it should be.
    There should also be a limit on the size of donations, whether by individuals or organisations which, of course, would be more than $250. We can have a debate about what the figure should be.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said—this point has been made in evidence to the Select Committee—that individuals should have a right to dispose of their properly taxed income as they please. I agree up to a point that individuals should have that right, but I believe that there is another right in a democracy. That right is for the electorate to know who is funding the organisations whose various programmes are contending for recognition. No absolute rights are involved, and one right has to be balanced against the other. Although we can argue about where to draw the line, a line should be drawn.
    230
    A point on which all democrats should be able to agree is that there should not be foreign donations. People who are not entitled to take part in our elections should not be allowed to contribute to the funding of one of the parties involved in political campaigning in elections. That is a simple principle which is readily accepted in other countries.
    The Secretary of State for Employment said that the integrity of our system shone through, which was a surprising remark in light of the debate. Whatever else one can say about today's debate, one cannot say that it has shown up the integrity of our system. We have an opportunity to improve the integrity of our system and I want our system to be respected elsewhere in the world. Regrettably, that is not the case at the moment.
    I shall be disappointed if our Select Committee divides on partisan lines on those simple points on which every democrat should agree. One objection that may be made is that, if the proposals are accepted, the amount coming into the main parties will go down. That is very possible. However, it may be a good thing rather than a bad thing for less money to be spent on the political process.
    If the result of shedding daylight on the funding of our political system is that contributions go down, I for one as a democrat will be able to live with that. I believe that our political system will be healthier as a result.
    7.34 pm
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: I profoundly agree with some of the points made by previous speakers, such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
    I also noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), my constituency neighbour and the chairman of the party, said. It was a robust defence and a necessary defence. It was important for me and, I suspect, for hundreds of thousands of Conservatives that he laid to rest some of the scandals, rumours and charges that have gone careering around our public life. My only comment is that it was a defence of the system as is. That is what is under challenge. I shall give a good reason why I think that it is profoundly unsatisfactory as is.
    It is profoundly unsatisfactory to watch the Prime Minister of Great Britain go to an international conference in Copenhagen which is important for our interests and to see him, the representative of us all—we all wish for the well-being of our country in its external relations—being besieged by inquiries about the funding of the Conservative party. It was a massive distortion and a deflection from purpose in government.
    I give the other instance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment fell into saying "we the Conservative party". Those who sit on the Conservative Front Bench are the Government of the United Kingdom. They have to act in the national interest and, from time to time, they have to rise above the mere partisan exchanges into which we enter with such vigour and, sometimes, enjoyment across the Floor of the House. It is not right that a Minister should defend the fund-raising activities of the Conservative party of which I am a member. My right hon. Friend is Her Majesty's Secretary of State and that in

    231
    itself shows the confusion in the public mind between the financing of a political party and the business of our country, as exemplified by the Government of our country.
    There are matters of considerable principle behind this debate. Several hon. Members have identified the fact that we are discussing our public system. It is the only way in which, in a democracy, we can transmit our purpose through our institutions and through our Government. It is, therefore, the most basic principle that those institutions should be seen not to be corrupt in any way. I have used the expression, "like Caesar's wife"; like Caesar's wife, the Government should be above suspicion. When challenged on that point, I cannot think of any Caesar's wife who was above suspicion. In fact, they engaged in regicide as often as not, if I remember sufficiently my Suetonius. However, the principle is right. Governments should be above suspicion.
    In the mass of charges and counter-charges, I, like every other hon. Member and certainly like every Conservative Member, wish to defend the integrity of my party. I am unable to defend it, because I cannot point to any published list of where the funds come from which would exorcise the malignity of the charges. I make that point as my principal purpose.
    Political funding or contributions to funding are not, as the former Chancellor Lord Hailsham said, a matter merely of privity or the fact that we have a right to dispose of our money as we wish. I accept that it may be true of charities in general: charities such as the Red Cross and a number of others actively seek funds. The motives of the givers in all instances can be questionable. They may be honourable; many people give to charities in the hope of aggrandising themselves in the eyes of the community. The givers may subtly be trying to reach for honour and recognition. Many give for honourable reasons, but political parties are different because they are contending for the Government of the country. They therefore hold public policy decisions in their hands.
    It is important that the public—that is you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and everyone here—do not think or cannot conclude that there is something essentially corrupt in the process. I appreciate that these are grand words, but our suspicious minds will always lead us to do just that. As long as donations are hidden and screened by the arguments that the right of privacy gives us the right to donate very large sums to political parties, there will always be a question mark. Public policy should dictate that large sums of money should be identifiable in the accounts of a party.
    The wider question, which has been touched on today, is that of integrity in public life. As a Conservative, I have to say that a seediness has been perceived by Conservatives in my constituency. It is with some diffidence that I mention the members of the Conservative Front Bench. I mention them because at the heart of our system—as
    emphasised at the beginning of my remarks—is integrity in public life. I am not interested in private lives; we are all entitled to one. That integrity must be manifest in public life. I can only report to the House and to my party what my Conservative association and my constituents have identified.
    There have been three Ministers of the Crown whose activities I cannot understand in the light of procedures for
    232
    Ministers published by the Cabinet Office. I cannot understand a Minister of the Crown accepting a holiday financed by the head of a foreign state. I cannot understand a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the Secretary of State for the Environment—accepting the gift of moneys towards his pond. When I was growing up, the sense of integrity in public life would have meant that an honourable man would have resigned. Perhaps I am wrong. He would not only have been out of the Cabinet but out of public life because the demonstration of the flame of integrity is the one trust that the public have.
    If we become disillusioned with our political processes, they are worth nothing. Our cry should be that the integrity of the institutions of state is the defence of each one of us as individual citizens. We look to the officers of the law for fairness because therein lies our freedom. The confidence with which we can look to the officers of the Crown is the confidence of our state. We diminish ourselves, but, much more, we diminish those whom we represent.
    This is a great country; it is a great democracy. Why are we trying to defend the status quo and yesterday when the world is swimming in an avalanche of—for all I know—the most profound lies? Why should we be diminished by that when we can call a halt to it today? The chairman of the Conservative party could say tomorrow that we will open our accounts. I hope that he will do so. We are a political party; we have battles to fight and causes to maintain. We could then say that a political party has to cut its coat according to its cloth—perhaps that is what we should be doing too.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) spoke of integrity in public life. It has come to my notice that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) misled the House this afternoon when referring to an article in Business Age. I have of course—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse an hon. Member of deliberately misleading the House.
    Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman has inadvertently and possibly unwittingly misled the House by stating that the article recently published in Business Age was going to be the subject of a full retraction. I have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman through the Government Whip—[Interruption.] I am sorry for the interruption from the Government Whip. I am told that the editor of Business Age has issued a statement arising from what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. It reads:
    "Business Age has never at any stage intended to and will not he publishing a retraction of its story. The gentleman's statement was therefore quite untrue."
    I should like to know from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman, having not satisfied or informed himself of what the editor of Business Age was going to do, to have unwittingly misled the House by saying that the magazine was to issue a full retraction, quite apart from any minor corrections to do with any particular personality with which the magazine might deal.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members will be aware that hon. Members are entirely responsible for the statements that they make in the Chamber.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We heard from a member of the Government Front Bench that there was no confirmation of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). In fact, we have given to the Whips Office for communication to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) a copy of the statement from Business Age. The statement is on the magazine's letterhead and comes from Tom Rubython, the editor. It is quite categoric. I merely wish to place that on the record.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. David Trimble: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), especially in view of the sentiments he expressed. Some Conservative Members have called today's debate a silly season or sleazy debate and there have been such elements in it. However, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills raised the tone of the debate, which is much to his credit and that of the House.
    I also agree with some of the points made by some Labour Members and by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who said that the motion and the amendment created a dilemma. It creates a dilemma for our party because we can agree with elements of both. I have not yet read the Labour party's charter for party political funding, so I am a little reluctant to give Labour a blank cheque. Basically, we support the principle of the disclosure of donations. I am not sure whether it should be carried as far as requiring parties to publish full accounts, but we believe that donations should be disclosed.
    I confess that what I understand to be in the Labour party's charter causes us some embarrassment. I believe that the trip wire for disclosure is a donation in the region of £5,000. I have seen that figure in the public prints. That would cause the Ulster Unionist party serious embarrassment because I am not aware of our ever having received a donation of that order. No doubt the trip wire could be set at an appropriate figure so that we could disclose something.
    The principle of disclosure is right. Conservative Members complained about sleaze, smears and allegations. The simple answer to the complaints is that, if there were disclosures, there could be no smears or innuendos. The Conservatives are suffering from self-inflicted wounds in that respect. Secrecy inflames or creates suspicion which could be dispelled.
    I may not be fully informed about the niceties, so I say with some trepidation that the position of Conservative central office is somewhat anomalous and dangerous. The controversy attaches not to the money raised through associations, which comes through the national union, but to the direct payments to central office, which is an anomalous body.
    The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield -Mr N. Fowler) described himself as the chairman of the Conservative party, but my understanding is that that is not his job. Instead the right hon. Gentleman is the chairman of central office—a position to which he was not elected but appointed. Central office has its origin in the
    234
    private office of the Prime Minister and if we bear that fact in mind we see the danger for the Conservative party. If there is a suspicion regarding moneys going to what is in essence the Prime Minister's private office, that is getting close to home and it is fairly dangerous. I should have thought that for the good of the party it would be desirable to disclose the facts and to put the position of central office on a more regular basis. I know that there are movements within the Conservative party pressing for that to be done and for internal democracy within the party. I wish those movements well. It would be good for the health of the Conservative party and for the health of public and political life in this nation if there were some effective internal democracy.
    As will be understood from the comments that I shall make later, I do not believe that one can separate the question of funding from the question of structure. The two are related. The line that the Conservatives have taken is simply to blame the Labour party and to say that it is just as bad, or worse, referring to its relationship with the unions. I am sure that Labour Members will acknowledge that there are anomalies in their relationship with the unions, too, which have given rise to some vulnerability.
    I make my suggestion with trepidation, as I may not be aware of all the subtleties of the relationship, but I have often thought that there is a simple solution to the charges made and to the problems that the relationship with the unions creates for the Labour party. For historical reasons, that relationship is quite understandable. However, the legislation governing unions now contains the requirement for ballots on political funds and trade union members effectively have to opt whether to pay the political levy. Why does not the Labour party arrange that by saying that opting to pay the political levy is opting for membership of the party? Why do not all those persons simply pay the political levy as members of the party? The Labour party could work that idea through in detail. It would get rid of the problem of a union, or a person controlling a union, appearing to buy votes, because the votes would be the votes of real people who had opted, by paying the political levy, to join the party. That should solve the problem.
    I cannot mention the political levy without mentioning what strikes me, as a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, as a serious anomaly. There are trade unionists in Northern Ireland, some of whom opt to pay the political levy and thereby help to finance the Labour party. Yet what does the Labour party do to those trade unionists who fund it? It bars them from membership. Is that creditable? I believe that by now the Labour party headquarters computers are programmed to eject immediately from the system any correspondence with the postcode BT, or automatically to generate a refusal if any such correspondence gets in. The Labour party takes people's money but refuses them membership. That is not creditable.
    I notice that the Labour motion refers to contributions from persons overseas. The principle behind the reference is healthy, but I understand—I hope that hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong—that the Labour party maintains an organisation which people who live outside the United Kingdom can join to show their support for the principles of the party. No doubt such people pay a membership fee; there may or may not be a financial relationship. I believe that the membership of the support group, if I may call it that, is not limited to British

    235
    nationals, but that anyone may join. That creates the anomaly whereby anybody in the world can support the Labour party—except 1·5 million citizens of the United Kingdom—
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Who live in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Trimble: Who live in Northern Ireland and are banned. Those are the only people in the world who are banned from the Labour party.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: They are lucky.
    Mr. Trimble: As I have said, we cannot separate funding from structure, but there is a serious point to be made about overseas support. I greatly regret that there is no Member in the Chamber who represents the Social Democratic and Labour party, because in that context we must mention the way in which that party not only receives but solicits overseas support. We know of the dinners held in Dublin to raise funds and the efforts made to raise funds from Irish Americans. Irish Americans from across the Atlantic are clearly persons overseas and money is raised from them. In the past the SDLP has accepted funding not only from individuals but from a body known as the National Democratic Foundation, which is closely linked to the United States Democratic party.
    I believe that the SDLP received six-figure sums from the National Democratic Foundation, sums in excess of the total income of the Ulster Unionist party. In addition, the party received specialist assistance, training and expertise. Its members were regularly sent to the United States to be trained. That was all done by an element of the Democratic party and now that the party is in the White House that element is talking about sending special envoys to Northern Ireland. That is the degree of the intimate relationship between that element of the Democratic party and the SDLP.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend is referring specifically to the National Democratic Foundation. Does not a large proportion of the money involved come ultimately from Government sources, because it can go through the Republican fund or the Democratic fund? When we talk about overseas Government funding of political parties, we must mention that anomaly.
    Mr. Trimble: I thank my hon. Friend for adding that information and for pointing out that Government funds can be laundered through that foundation, which enables the Government of another country, or a major political party in another country, to interfere directly in the internal affairs of part of the United Kingdom. That is not a healthy state of affairs.
    I should add that the funding from the National Democratic Foundation has ceased within the last year or two, causing an immediate financial crisis for the SDLP. However, that is another issue and I shall not go into it now.
    I said that one could not consider the question of funding apart from the question of structure. I also assert that we must examine not only funding but expenditure and the reasons for expenditure. As has been illustrated by the frequent references to spending during the general election year, the major item of expenditure for political
    236
    parties is the general election. The anomaly is that there is no limit on national expenditure and campaigns. Many of the problems would be resolved if there were such a limit.
    I am sure that hon. Members know that every political party in the United Kingdom, except one, supports the idea of working out limits on national expenditure in general election campaigns. The one party that does not support that idea is the Conservative party, which, of course, adopted that position out of self-interest, because it thought that it could outspend the other parties. However, I am not sure whether it did significantly outspend the other parties at the general election—
    Mr. Riddick: No.
    Hon. Members: Yes.
    Mr. Trimble: If we had full disclosure of expenditure we could resolve the question. I hear hon. Members asserting across the Chamber that the Conservative party did or did not outspend other parties. I am not sure whether it had that financial advantage.
    If there was a realistic limit on expenditure the need to raise funds would not be felt so keenly. Sometimes fund-raisers may go too far in their efforts. It is curious that we have financial limits on the least important aspect—constituency—spending-but no limit on national expenditure. That should be put right.
    I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall make only a few final comments. We do not support the idea of state funding. Some hon. Members have said that Short money is different, but one wonders why. What is needed is adequate support for research by individual members, so that they can fund the research that they need to undertake in order to discharge their duties in the House. If there was adequate research support for hon. Members, there would be no need for Short money.
    Reference has been made to trade union legislation and it has been acknowledged that there is a public interest in the regulation of unions because of the important role that they play in society and in the economy. Political parties are also important. There is also a case for regulation, or at least the setting of minimum standards, with regard to the structure and conduct of political parties generally.
    I know that that is an awkward topic and not perhaps one that we would want to be resolved by legislation. However, the issue is important and it should be addressed. Perhaps that debate could be carried forward through the suggestion of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
    7.59 pm
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If a martian were to appear in the Strangers Gallery and it did not know the background to this debate, it would reach a conclusion about the sheer hypocrisy of Opposition Members. The Opposition will regret having raised this subject when there are so many other important issues on the agenda.
    The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and others have referred to state funding. I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann about that. If we were to ask the taxpayer to pay for political campaigning when the Government are trying to rein back on public expenditure in an attempt to control and contain it, we would meet a very negative response. Furthermore, every opinion poll and survey that I have seen shows that at least 75 or 80 per

    237
    cent. of the public are against public funding of political campaigning. We know very well what the Labour party is after. Labour is broke and it wants the taxpayer to bail it out. It is as simple as that.
    A great deal has been said today about Asil Nadir. I want to declare an interest because I am one of the 60,000-odd small shareholders in Polly Peck. It has been an interesting topsy-turvy investment. My stockbroker bought my shares for me at about £1·50 without my consent as he has discretion on my account. I recall that they rose to £4. slipped back to £2 and then came down to about 20p. I believe that they are now worth 0·02p. That has certainly been an interesting investment and my holding is still worth something, so I have an interest to declare. No one is more anxious than I am to see Mr. Nadir face charges in the courts of this country.
    On the other hand, I strongly believe that one is innocent until proven guilty. At the moment, the only thing that Mr. Nadir is guilty of is jumping bail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made a fair point. Polly Pcck was a blue chip company. It was a member of the FT-SE30. The company fooled top merchant banks, and every institution in the City had a holding in Polly Peck. The company fooled them and the Tory party.
    It is interesting to note that Mr. Razzall, the Liberal party treasurer, said that the Liberal party would also have taken that money so long as it was properly declared. However, when a party takes money from a company, it does not know at the time that that money is not going to be declared in the accounts. That is why I believe that parties should publish accounts in which they should show what corporate donations they have received. If parties did that, it would meet many of the accusations levelled at the Conservative party in respect of corporate donations, some of which are not being declared, not through the fault of the Conservative party, but because that company or a subsidiary of that company has been negligent in that respect.
    I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said. He said that if there is evidence that the money was improperly procured, it will be paid back. I believe what he said, and it was confirmed by the chairman of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield.
    If Mr. Asil Nadir really thought that he was buying favours, he was bitterly disappointed. I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), but was prevented by Opposition Members from saying what I wanted to say. I wanted to make a point about British Airways. British Airways had given money to the Tory party for a prolonged period. It was one of our biggest corporate donors.
    I recall very sensitive and delicate discussions and negotiations taking place about routes to Tokyo and about slots at Heathrow. British Airways was very disappointed when it did not get what it wanted. It then cut off its subscription to the Conservative party. That is surely an example of the Conservative party, when it forms the Government, not being bought off by a large corporate donor or being unduly influenced.
    I had the privilege of being the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State for Transport at the time of those discussions. As one of the parties to the
    238
    discussions was a donor to the Tory party, Ministers looked even more carefully at the merits of the case and were even more wary.
    We can see such behaviour across the board. It is clear from certain defence contracts when defence companies happen to be donors to the Tory party. They often do not get what they want. What about the big brewers? The Government have done them no favours in respect of the beer law reforms, yet among their number are some of the biggest donors to the Conservative party. Some members of the Eurotunnel consortia are donors to the Tory party, but I can state quite candidly that we have not exactly done them too many favours.
    That leads me to the question of private donors. I feel very strongly that if someone makes a donation to a political party, to a charity or to any other organisation, he is entitled to total anonymity, because if it is revealed that he made a large donation that individual will be inundated with other requests.
    I have made a few small modest contributions to charities in my constituency. On one occasion, although I requested anonymity, the charity gave my donation publicity. Some 40 or 50 other organisations then wrote to me asking for a similar contribution. That is why I feel very strongly that, if any individual makes a donation, it must be up to that person to decide whether that information should be made public.
    Exactly the same applies to foreign donors. If foreign donors want to donate money to a political party, why should they not do that? If they feel that our free market system and policies on employment law and trade unions will benefit their corporation and trade, why should those foreign donors not give money to the party that is likely to form a Government who will further the system of free enterprise that will benefit their companies? If they want anonymity as private individuals, so be it.
    However, if there are particularly large donations to any party, it would probably be a good thing if that individual could be persuaded to renounce anonymity. I certainly would not insist on that and I would not insist on its appearing in a party's accounts. I would certainly not insist on it appearing in Conservative party accounts.
    We have heard many different arguments this afternoon. No party in the House is whiter than white. We have heard a great deal about how the Labour party is financed by the trade unions and, in that respect, I recall the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence) quoted trade union leaders such as Tom Sawyer and others, including John Edmonds. They pay their money and they expect to have a say in how their party is run. Not only do they pay their money; they expect to have a direct say in how candidates are selected and in policy formation. Not one corporate donor to the Tory party has ever insisted on that.
    Opposition Members have expressed a great deal of cant, hypocrisy and humbug. Let us consider some of the large donors. The Maxwell saga has not yet been unscrambled. What about the four peers in the House of Lords who were on the Maxwell pay books? Some of them made large private donations to the Labour party, but none of that has come out. The Social and Liberal Democrats have received money over the years from people like Union Jack Hayward and other large donors,

    239
    including Lord Sainsbury. We also heard again today that the Labour party has taken money from firms such as Northern Foods, B and Q and others.
    The issue is a simple one and, therefore, I feel that the martian would be appalled by the sheer hypocrisy demonstrated in the Chamber today. The Opposition could have debated one of the great issues of the day, but they chose to pick on party political funding. They will regret that for the simple reason that, if one lives in a glasshouse, one should not throw lumps of concrete around. That is why I urge hon. Members to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to chuck out the motion.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. Alan Meale: I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose speech addressed the true issue behind the debate. We should examine the current funding system, because it is not working, and is causing anxiety to hon. Members of every political party.
    That concern is easy to understand when we consider what happened during the general election, when tens of millions of pounds were spent on national advertising campaigns. It is not surprising that such activity has been described as sleazy, when one considers the money that was thrown at public relations companies to push forward one political party or another. It is important to recall the massive amounts of money that were spent on advertising billboards before and after the general election. After all, people thought that that election was to be held before the election date in April.
    It is amazing to hear Conservative Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, making accusations about particular individuals who try to raise funds through certain organisations that have been associated with the Labour party since it inception—the trade unions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who spoke about the funds collected by trade unions in Northern Ireland and the restrictions that are placed on union members. I hope that that system is examined by the Labour party.
    It is quite extraordinary for Conservative Members to turn around and throw the blame at Opposition Members. In my constituency, I was sent information time and time again by Conservative party members and supporters which provided me with evidence of meetings and fund-raising activities organised by Lord Beaverbrook to try to raise funds in Mansfield for the Tory party. That money was designed to help the party in its push to win the constituency at the general election.
    Those efforts should have had some effect, because in the previous Parliament I had the smallest majority, at 56. They did not seem to work, however, because my majority increased by 16·9 per cent. to nearly 12,000. All I can say is, "Keep sending the letters."
    It is scandalous for Conservative Members to say that money has not been donated to their party from abroad. It is widely known that, in the past three years, Ministers and other hon. Members have gone around the world to try to get people to register to vote. Their purpose was also to gather money for the coffers of the Conservative party. It is misleading for Conservative Members to say that they
    240
    have not been involved in such activity.
    The activities of Asil Nadir and the revelation that he gave such a gigantic amount of money to the Conservative party for its general election campaign funds have caused great concern. It is extraordinary that Conservative Members should try to justify his behaviour. The collapse of Polly Peck did not occur that long ago, but it was not as recent as some hon. Members have tried to suggest today. The warning signs about that company, however, were apparent for some time before its collapse.
    We know from evidence that has now been produced that Polly Peck was in a rocky state for some time. Perhaps one reason that Mr. Nadir was not successful in his attempt to get some kind of honour, despite his huge donations to the Conservative party, was that the future of his company looked rocky.
    It is no credit to the House to say that the Conservative party is not the only political party to be caught out in political donations that led to honours. Political parties on both sides of the House have put people forward for honours because of donations from those individuals. The sooner that practice stops the better.
    We must be honest with ourselves and accept that sleazy activities took place. We should take note of what has happened recently—for example, a Minister of the Crown sending a watch to Mr. Nadir, engraved with the slogan, "Don't let the buggers get you down." That Minister is still in office. What about the expenses-paid trips provided for hon. Members by companies such as that owned by Asil Nadir? Those individuals not only received free tickets to visit foreign parts, but stayed in an hotel owned by Mr. Asil Nadir. In one instance, that occurred two days before he skipped bail and escaped abroad.
    Rumours and innuendo are rife that Members of the British Parliament have been loaned, given or offered properties at advantageous prices in northern Cyprus. Some of them are owned by Greek Cypriots, who are now refugees and no longer live in that occupied area of Cyprus. Such is the behaviour that has gone on, yet some people have tried to say that it does not matter. It does matter, because it lowers the tone of the Chamber and the reputation of everyone who sits in it, whatever his party. It is quite disgraceful that such behaviour has gone on.
    We must decide what on earth we are going to do about such activities. We need to introduce, as quickly as possible, limits on spending by political parties. We also need to set a limit on the funds that arc collected for election campaigns. We also need to limit the size of donations; otherwise, undue influence could be brought to bear. We must also not be shy about the fact that the shareholders of companies, individual householders and voters have a right to know about funding. We must reveal the wherewithal and the source of donations. We also need to ban donations by foreign individuals.
    It is no good the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) saying that the nature of political funding does not matter. It does. Not long ago, we were at war with Iraq, the leader of which is regarded by many hon. Members as an absolute maniac. It would not be beyond his imagination, however, to start to throw a bit of money around in Britain. Before the war, his Foreign Minister used to visit London regularly, and it is a well-known fact that he used to lose up to £250,000 a month at the casino tables in London and elsewhere.

    241
    Large amounts of money can be thrown around by Governments—at such times, friendly ones, or hostile ones of the future. We must not allow either Governments or foreign business men or women to offer large sums of money to parties as that may influence the political direction of our country.
    I echo what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has said. It is time for us to clean up our act in this place. It is time for us to get ourselves together and introduce a system which is clean and tidy and which people can Just.
    8.19 pm
    Mr. David Shaw: Opposition Members have chosen a debate that has backfired on them because much of their case is based on lies, rumours and half-truths. However, what is true is that Maxwell supported the Labour party and that there is a peer sitting on the Labour Front Bench in the House of Lords who took £750,000 from the pensioners—it was pension fund money. That peer sits there today with the full support of the Labour party and its leader. He sits there, having been responsible for managing £80 million that went walkabout—that is about the same amount that has gone walkabout in Asil Nadir's company. I hope that Lord Donoughue will have the courage of his convictions and pay back the money. When will those on the Labour Front Bench take away their support for Lord Donoughue? When will they say, "Enough is enough, Lord Donoughue—get off our Front Bench"?
    The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) failed to disclose the contributions made by Maxwell to the secret fund that was used by Michael Foot to oppose the Boundary Commission. Why was the fund so secret? What bank accounts did the money come from? Was it solely money that Maxwell put up, or did it come from other sources as well? We certainly did not find that out from the right hon. Lady.
    The main issue to which I want to draw the attention of the House is what is happening in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The financing of the Labour party in Monklands is in a dreadful state. The trade unions have an iron grip on the party. The Labour executive in Scotland said that the Labour party in Monklands had no rules to run itself. The leader of the Labour party is a lawyer but the Labour party in his constituency has no rules to run itself. The same Scottish Labour party report has criticised the Labour council group for having no rules to run itself.
    In those circumstances, is it surprising that about 25 family members of councillors have become council employees? Is it surprising that party members get family members jobs with the Monklands district council? Is it surprising that the highest number of employees per thousand population of any council in Scotland can be found in Monklands district council? Is it surprising that local newspapers in Monklands have described a meeting of the direct works department as being like a meeting of the Labour party because one cannot tell the difference between the works department and the Labour party in Monklands? Is it surprising that a £10 million shopping centre development is now costing pensioners and council taxpayers £1 million a year? There is corruption and nepotism, and there are transactions that have not been explained.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a bit wide. This debate is about the funding of political parties, not the domestic affairs of a specific council.
    Mr. Shaw: At the beginning, I was careful to point out that party financing in Monklands and the organisation and structure there is so corrupt and integrated that the decision-making processes of the council are controlled by the trade unions. The trades unions control the Labour party in Monklands and therefore can award themselves more jobs and keep the whole process going by diverting public money to the Labour party through trade union sources. That money belongs to the council and the public.
    As has been said, it is also a question of company law. I shall refer to the way in which company law is being abused in Monklands. For example, the leader of Monklands council has loans from Scottish Enterprise which went to one company. However, the money was diverted to another company and, as a consequence, £100,000 of taxpayers' money has been lost. The council leader's brother, who is in partnership with him, is being sued by the Inland Revenue for the non-payment of £44,000 in taxes.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide. We are talking about contributions to political parties but he has hardly referred to that. I ask him to come back to the debate and not refer to the business of local councils.
    Mr. Shaw: The key point is that the council leader, Mr. Jim Brooks, is an active supporter, both financially and otherwise, of the Labour party in Monklands. While I realise that some aspects of the debate relate to the national Labour party and the national Conservative party, the Labour party in Monklands is involved with the national Labour party—it is controlled and run by the national Labour party. Corruption in the Labour party in Monklands, which the Leader of the Opposition has failed to do anything about, is relevant to the debate. Company law and taxation law are being abused.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Shaw: I would like to give way but we are running out of time and I have a lot to get through.
    There are serious allegations that the Labour party in Monklands is being supported by a council leader who has not always paid national insurance contributions for his employees. As a consequence, many employees may well lose part of their state pensions.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's explanation for the point that he is making. He is certainly not satisfying the Chair that he is not going wide of the debate, and I ask him to come back to it.
    Mr. Shaw: I hope that I have made it clear that money, which should have been used to pay national insurance contributions for employees of the company run by the council leader, has ended up in the Labour party.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: What does that have to do with contributions to political parties?
    Mr. Shaw: It is about contributions and the fact that money has ended up in the Labour party to support the re-election campaign of the right hon. and learned

    243
    Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. His campaign for re-election has been based on corrupt money. The Conservative party has been accused of fighting an election with corrupt money from Asil Nadir.
    Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was a privilege to be a Member of Parliament and that we could not abuse someone outside who did not have the right to speak in the House. Basically, no one on Monklands district council has been charged with corruption.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
    Mr. Shaw: As I said, we are being criticised on the basis of allegations against Mr. Asil Nadir and contributions that have ended up in the Conservative party. I am saying that the election campaign of the Leader of the Opposition was funded and supported by illegal moneys that had been diverted from the public purse to his own ends. The most appalling cover-up has been put in place.
    Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully realise the dilemma that you are in with the speech of the hon. Gentleman. Surely there is a rule in the House that an hon. Member must notify another hon. Member before he raises any matter relating to that hon. Member.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in no dilemma at all. There is a courtesy—it is not a rule—that an hon. Member must notify another hon. Member if he wants to raise a matter relating to that hon. Member. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has done that but it is a matter for him.
    Mr. Graham: On a further point of order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that it is a point of order, because many other hon. Members want to speak, and time is limited.
    Mr. Graham: I should like your advice and guidance on this matter. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said that the election campaign of the Leader of the Opposition was funded illegally.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Dover is responsible for his own speech.
    Mr. Shaw: I can assure the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) that on a number of occasions, even to the point of risking the wrath of the Speaker, I have tried to confront the Leader of the Opposition to make it clear that I wanted to raise this issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have been here because he should know that I had put my name down to speak in the debate. He knew that I was likely to try to raise the issue. He saw me in the Chamber earlier.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that he has just made a serious accusation of a criminal offence, and has named individuals in connection with it. Does he have the courage to repeat that allegation outside the cloak of privilege?
    Mr. Shaw: I have made it clear that those accusations have been made outside the House. They are part of a serious investigation by the Scottish Office. I have every
    244
    confidence that, if there is any justice in Scotland, the investigation will result as soon as possible in the police formalising a full investigation and charges being laid. I believe that the matter is serious. The Leader of the Opposition has had every opportunity to do something about it.
    The position is so serious that I have discovered in the past few days that the right thon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is very worried. Although his only statement to date has been, "I am not in a position to comment"—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must insist now. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide. He must get back to the debate. If he does not do so, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. Shaw: In the office of the Leader of the Opposition there is a man called Mr. Murray Elder, who has attempted to make a cover-up. As far as I am aware, he is funded by party political funds. Mr. Murray Elder has contacted a constituent of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and has—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
    Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take no point of order.
    Mr. Meale: It is important.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It had better be a point of order.
    Mr. Meale: It is a point of order. An allegation was made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I want to put it on the record that the person who was named was funded by Short money, which is money from the Government—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
    8.31
    Mr. David Winnick: The best that one can say about the remarks that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is that they are characteristic of him. If he believes that they are true, he will take the first opportunity to repeat them outside the House. There is no reason why he should not do so today.
    I declared my interest last week. My constituency party receives a rather limited sum from a trade union during general election campaigns. The debate that the Opposition have initiated is perfectly justified. In view of some of the criticisms that have been heard today, the serious allegations that have been made and the position of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, it would have been wrong if we had not had the debate.
    I tabled a question to the Attorney-General last week in which I asked him how many hon. Members had made representations to him about Polly Peck. As many hon. Members will be aware, the Attorney-General replied that seven hon. Members had made such representations. Out of those seven, we know the identities of three. Only one of those three had a constituency interest.
    It would have been appropriate for the four remaining Members—I take it that they are Conservative Members—to declare before today or during today's debate why they made representations to the Attorney-General about

    245
    a prosecution case that had not come to court. What purpose and what motivation did they have in making such representations? If there was no constituency interest, why did they make representations to the Attorney-General, either orally or in writing?
    I deplore the way in which, in response to later questions tabled by me, the Attorney-General has made it virtually impossible—the word "virtually" is not even necessary, he has made it impossible—for Members of Parliament to table any further questions about Mr. Nadir. We have been gagged. As a result of what the Attorney-General said to me at the end of last week, it is not possible to table any questions on representations by hon. Members about Polly Peck. It is not the role of the Attorney-General to stop us tabling such questions. After all, if I had not tabled the original question, we would not have known that seven Tory Members of Parliament had made representations to the Attorney-General.
    I wonder how many representations have been made by Tory Members of Parliament about prosecution cases other than Polly Peck and Maxwell which have not come to court. There is bound to be anxiety, especially in view of the financial contribution that Mr. Nadir made to the Conservative party.
    Last week, in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, and again today, the chairman of the Tory party denied that there was any question of a connection between large contributions to the Conservative party and honours or influence. We can make up our own minds about that, but the fact remains that since 1980, 18 life peerages and 82 knighthoods have been given to those involved with companies which have made the largest donations—at least £17 million in the past 10 years.
    It may be that the 18 life, peers and 82 knights would have received their honours regardless of any company contributions to the Conservative party. However, I wonder how many people in Britain really believe that. How many people believe that there is no connection between making a large and continuing financial contribution to the Tory party and receiving honours? As for influence, much of the legislation introduced by the Conservative Govenment in the past 10 years, including tax laws and tax concessions, favours the very rich.
    Mr. Nadir did not receive his knighthood. I am sure that Conservative Members are pleased about that. Yes, it would appear that Mr. Nadir craved a knighthood and did not receive one. However, it is likely that if investigations had not taken place—informal investigations in the first place, followed by serious charges against him—and Mr. Nadir had continued to make contributions, he would have received his knighthood. None of us would have been particularly surprised if that had happened. So one cannot say that our case is undermined because one person who has fled justice did not receive an honour.
    Opposition Members do not suggest that there is an automatic connection. No one suggests that it is so simplistic. No one suggests that if a person makes a large contribution or several large contributions to the Tory party, individually or through one's company, he receives a knighthood, life peerage or some other honour. Of course, it is not as simple as that. But I suggest, as my hon. Friends have suggested, that there is some connection. The sooner that such connections are broken, the better.
    It is interesting to note that the Conservative party has not received a favourable press on this matter. The editorial in the Evening Standard last week after the right
    246
    hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) had given evidence to the Select Committee was headed "Come, come, Sir Norman." It was critical of the evidence that he gave to the Committee. Writing in The Daily Telegraph last week, Paul Johnson—we all know how enthusiastic converts can be—criticised the way in which the Tory party finances itself. He made the connection between contributions and honours. So the allegations are not simply some Labour smear. There are questions to be answered.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) said, why on earth did the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—a Minister of the Crown—consider it right and proper, after serious charges had been made against Mr. Nadir, to send him a watch with that vulgar and abusive message? Why did he believe that the Crown Prosecution Service was not carrying out its duties and responsibilities properly? I certainly believe that that Minister should resign, especially in view of the further matters which have arisen. It is nothing personal. It so happens that, in many respects, I believe that he has done a useful job in Northern Ireland, however strongly I disagree with him. That does not alter the fact that what has come to light is a resignation matter.
    On three occasions, I have introduced ten-minute rule Bills designed to reform the system of party funding and electoral expenditure. As I have argued in the House previously, I believe full disclosure to be essential. I cannot accept the argument that as voting is secret in this country, so contributions should be secret. The most effective way to undermine allegations of there being connections between contributions and honours and so on would be to do away with secret, underhand methods and publish full details.
    The Labour party already discloses a considerable amount, but if it is felt necessary, in the public interest, to disclose more, my party should do so. All parties represented in the House should follow the path of full disclosure, certainly above a certain limited sum. I do not wish to stop companies donating, but there should be a political fund for those wishing to donate.
    Some people believe that trade unions have had political funds only since the Conservatives came to office. That is wrong. Since 1913, trade unions have not been able to donate a penny for political purposes without establishing a political fund. The Conservatives have simply made it essential for unions to re-run the ballot every 10 years. Prior to that, as I say, no trade union could contribute money unless a political fund was in existence. It had to be set up by members after a ballot. Moreover, any trade unionist who does not wish to contribute can contract out.
    Consider the way in which large companies donate money to the Tory party. The disclosure that is necessary exists only because of changes introduced by the then Labour Government in 1967. But there is no balloting. If a shareholder disagrees with the company's approach, he can attend a board meeting, but he will have little influence, because we know how company annual general meetings are organised.
    I was glad that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) pointed out that the amount spent on behalf of a candidate at a general election is tightly controlled. If a candidate exceeds that sum and wins, he may appear before a court and can be disqualified. That is right and

    247
    nobody is suggesting that that rule should be altered. Nobody would suggest that it should be possible to buy votes. Control exists to ensure fairness.
    If that is the case on the local scene, why should the political parties at a general election be able to spend as much as they like? There is no limit. The fact of there being no limit in that case undermines what we are trying to establish locally. That is why I say that we should reach agreement, though I would not put a figure on it now. It is not necessary to be that precise at this stage. If agreement could be reached on an all-party basis to place controls on the amount that may be spent at a general election, we should have gone a long way towards achieving our goal.
    Conservative Members have suggested that we want state funding. I do not know how many of my hon. Friends are in favour of such a system, but I believe there is an argument for a degree of state funding. Today, there are constant accusations flying about. We accuse the Conservative party of receiving money along the lines suggested in this debate. Conservative Members in turn accuse Opposition Members of receiving money from trade unions. Is there not a case for saying that the parties represented in the House—parties which at least have electoral credibility and receive some electoral support—should receive money?
    If it is said that that system would be wrong because ordinary citizens should not have to contribute, one must ask what view is taken of Short money. How many people have written protesting about Short money? That began when the Conservatives were in opposition in 1975, and people have not objected, for example, to the number of political assistants of Conservative Ministers or the way in which they are funded. I do not object, because the same would happen if Labour were in office.
    Let us remember that we are paid out of taxpayers' money. So why should we take the view that if we had a degree of state funding, it would be deeply resented by the general public? I do not believe that they would object and, in any event, there is a good case for some state funding. I wish to make it clear that I do not want to stop people contributing. That must he permissible in a democracy.
    Conservative Members who strenuously oppose state funding should recall that every candidate who stands for election—whatever the party, major or minor, and however fringe the candidate—receives assistance. Postal delivery costs money and is financed by the taxpayer. How many Conservative Members have said at the hustings or in the House, "I do not want to receive such assistance during the election campaign"? It is all taxpayers' money, so let us put an end to the argument that any state funding along the lines that my hon. Friends and I have suggested would undermine democracy.
    We in this country, on the whole, have a clean democracy. I assure Conservative Members that I am totally genuine in my views on the subject. We are concerned for the integrity of public life. We had a clean democracy in the 1960s and 1970s, but that did not stop us introducing the Register of Members' Interests. Some hon. Members argued at the time that it was not necessary because we were all honourable. I am not aware of any hon. Member who now argues against the existence of that register.
    248
    Further reforms along the lines that my hon. Friends and I, and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), have suggested are necessary. But, above all, we require full disclosure of money coming to political parties. That is an essential reform which, once introduced, would be welcomed. Nobody would then suggest that we should return to the situation that exists now. I hope that more than one Conservative Member will tonight accept that it is essential for the status quo to come to an end. Some basic and essential reforms on political expenditure are vital for public life and political integrity in Britain.
    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not common courtesy and normal practice in the House for an hon. Member who makes a speech in which he makes accusations to remain in his place at the conclusion of his speech to hear the following speaker, especially when it is clear that the following speaker intends to put a point of view based on the hon. Gentleman's speech?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a common courtesy in the House that, on resuming his seat after making a speech, an hon. Member remains to hear the following speaker. I have noticed for some time that, sadly, that courtesy and, I must say, others, have not been observed. I, too, hope that in future hon. Members will observe the common courtesies of the House. I regret that that has not been the case in recent times and that many hon. Members have been guilty in that respect.
    8.47 pm
    Mr. Stephen Milligan: It was refreshing, after the catalogue of unsubstantiated smears from the Labour Front Bench, to hear the comments of hon. Members on the Labour and Liberal Back Benches. Fortunately, some serious speeches have been made and I am anxious to reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who put the argument for state funding. I am glad that at least one Labour Member had the honesty to be clear about his policy.
    There are two objections to state funding. The first is that the people of Britain clearly do not want it. We got a taste of the way in which people would react to it from the reaction to the decision of the House to increase our office allowances hugely last year, a decision carried mainly by Labour votes. The decision was greatly resented in my constituency and that of many others. At a time when people are tightening their belts, the idea that we should be awarding ourselves extra money in some shape or form is not well received by the public.
    The second and more important argument against state funding is that I object to it being suggested as a cleaner system which is less vulnerable to abuse. It is striking that in almost every European country in the last year—for example, in France, Spain, Germany and most noticeably in Italy—there has been a series of scandals, even though each country has state funding. It is clear that state funding does not end political scandals. It merely creates more opportunities.
    We in this country are fortunate to have a decent and clean system and an important reason for that was given by the hon. Member for Walsall, North when he spoke of

    249
    limits on spending in the constituencies. Calculations show that the Americans spend 16 times more per elector during the elections than we spend in this country.
    At the national level, the crucial reason why there is no corruption and there is a fair balance between the parties is the fact that there are controls on television. One cannot buy television commercials as one can in America. The system of party political broadcasts means that, by and large, every party gets a fair crack of the whip. The Opposition parties get a bigger crack of the whip than one might expect according to the proportion of votes cast.
    If we are to maintain a voluntary system, which I believe that the people of this country want, we must then ask: does the money given voluntarily to all parties in the House buy or influence decisions? My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) said that a number of recent decisions, including those on the brewers and British Airways, clearly demonstrated that when there was a clash between the interests of the people who had given money to the Conservative party and the interests of the country, the Government put the interests of the country first.
    Many of my hon. Friends will know that there is great unhappiness among landowners and property owners about the proposals on leasehold reform—the Duke of Westminster has withdrawn funds from the party because of it. I am delighted to say that such actions have had no influence on the Government's decision. The Opposition have today produced no evidence to suggest that money given to the Conservative party has influenced Government decisions, which is the critical test.
    What a contrast the Labour party offers. Does money buy influence in the Labour party? Of course it does. It is included in its constitution—it buys 40 per cent. of the votes in the selection of candidates and 40 per cent. of the votes in the election of the leader of the Labour party.
    Mr. Graham rose rose—
    Mr. Milligan: I shall not give way as time is short.
    I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to clean up his act, but all that he is trying to do is to eliminate the union share in the selection of candidates and the election of leader. He is not trying to eliminate the block vote. What a protest there would be if the shareholders or directors of Polly Peck or British Airways had a block vote at the Conservative party conference. There has been one member, one vote at the Conservative party conference for a long time.
    The case of Mr. Asil Nadir has been frequently mentioned. He paid a lot of money—£440,000. What influence did he buy? What favourable decisions did he receive?
    Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Milligan: No, I shall not give way.
    Mr. Nadir received 10 minutes with the then chainnan of the Conservative party to say how the presentation of the poll tax was going wrong. Tens of thousands of people agreed with Mr. Nadir and gave their advice free of charge. I think that Mr. Nadir's advice was helpful in that respect, but he received nothing else—what a contrast to Labour. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will succeed, but the omens are not favourable. He will not eliminate the sponsorship of individual candidates.
    250
    I was interested to see what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) had to say. Incidentally, I gave her warning that I would raise the issue on the Floor of the House. She had written to Labour's Deputy Chief Whip to say that she was nervous that Aslef's sponsorship could be withdrawn from her. She was frank and open, as is Labour party policy. She said that she was keen to be a member of the Select Committee on Transport. She is reported to have written to the Deputy Chief Whip as follows:
    '"If I was a member of the select committee,' she adds, with compelling logic, 'it would, should it ever arise, be difficult (for Aslef) to argue that I was not money well spent."'
    The link between money given and the influence that the unions expect to derive from it is clear.
    Mr. Riddick: Like my hon. Friend, I had hoped to speak in tonight's debate, but he has been luckier than I have. I wrote to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). Someone who I happen to know overheard a conversation in one of the buildings in the House of Commons in which a researcher to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said that she had been told to find out the dirt on Graham Riddick. As I was raising the issue mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Labour party felt it necessary to find out the dirt on me. Of course, there is none, as my hon. Friend will know.
    Mr. Milligan: I am shocked to hear of that revelation, but it will be a fruitless search as there is no dirt on my hon. Friend.
    However, we have seen a gross act of hypocrisy from the Labour party Front Bench team which has raised a number of issues. We were accused of having received anonymous donations. Those who give money to the Labour party on the same basis have long been anonymous, as have those who have given money to the Liberal party. We have been accused of accepting money from foreign Governments, but that has been denied by every Conservative Member who has spoken.
    I used to work on The Sunday Times, which was a responsible newspaper in those days. We published an interesting story—
    Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Milligan: No, I shall not give way—perhaps the hon. Gentleman is hard of hearing.
    At that time The Sunday Times was the first to reveal that the National Union of Miners was seeking money from Colonel Gaddafi and had sent representatives to Tripoli to obtain finance for the miners' strike. It was later revealed that the NUM received £150,000 from Libya and also received money from the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. In that period, the NUM paid thousands of pounds to the Labour party in affiliation fees. I wonder if the Labour party will now recognise that that was tainted foreign money which should be returned. I suspect not.
    The Labour party has accused us of receiving money from dubious sources and has said that it should be returned. However, it admitted that it received money from Robert Maxwell—because that was done openly, it believes that it has no responsibility to return it.
    Mr. Clappison rose—
    Mr. Milligan: I shall not give way as time is short.

    251
    The fact that the money was taken from pensioners did not seem to weigh with the Labour party at all. The motion is hypocritical and I suggest that the Labour party should take the beam out of its eye before it seeks to take the mote out of ours.
    8.57 pm
    Mrs. Barbara Roche: In the spirit of openness and disclosure in which the Labour party firmly believes, may I first say that, although I am not sponsored by a trade union, at the last election my constituency party received a small number of donations from trade unions towards the election campaign.
    In the past few weeks and days, all the papers and commentators have spoken of the need for openness and sunlight, which is the best disinfectant, on the murky subject of funding, particularly of the Conservative party. The spectacle of Tory Members of Parliament, party officials, ex-treasurers and others falling over each other to give us more information in recent days is illuminating.
    Brendan Bruce, former director of communications for the Conservative party, told journalists that when he wrote in his recent book, "Images of Power" that he had taken Asil Nadir out to lunch
    "in an attempt to extract money from him for Tory party funds"
    he had wrongly recalled the occasion and money had not been discussed. It is amazing how opinions can change so rapidly.
    In addition, as has been said, the Attorney-General and others refused to reveal the identity of the so-called furtive four. I do not know what Asil Nadir's contributions obtained for him or paid for, but a remarkable number of representations has certainly been made. This contradicts the efforts of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on open government and the Tory party's claims to be in favour of it. Indeed, one of the Prime Minister's earliest statements on taking office was on that very subject. Yet we are given no details about who made those representations. What sort of openness is that?
    The position of Conservative central office when the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I am honoured to be a member, decided to inquire into funding is also interesting. First, a spokesman for Conservative central office said that it was a bit early to say whether the party would co-operate with the Committee's inquiry. Then one Tim Collins, who I gather is the assistant to the party chairman, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), said that it was an impertinence that the Committee should look into the private funds of the party.
    Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield would not allow me to intervene in his speech today. He seemed rather reluctant to take interventions. But I should be interested to know whether he dissociated himself from the impertinent remarks of his assistant.
    Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady had plenty of opportunity last Wednesday to question my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield in the Select Committee. Why did she put none of those questions to him then and why is she now complaining?
    Mrs. Roche: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks. He will recall that I had a huge number of questions to put to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, none of
    252
    which he answered satisfactorily. That was an additional little question that I wanted to put to him today, but he seemed curiously reluctant to take interventions.
    Major General Sir Brian Wyldebore-Smith told the Financial Times that he frequently was not aware who donors were and from where the cheques came. He also said that he never refused a cheque. That is interesting since the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield told us proudly of the tremendous new rules, and that money was not accepted from foreign Governments. Sir Brian Wyldebore-Smith was the chairman of the Conservative Board of Finance for 22 years, yet he said that he had never known the Conservative party to refuse a cheque.
    Then we had Lord McAlpine telling the world from Venice that the Conservative party was wrong to accept Asil Nadir's donation. The Conservative party tried to present Asil Nadir as a respectable business man, but consider from where his money came. Asil Nadir was allegedly the largest single source of income for Rauf Denktash, the so-called leader of the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus, an illegal regime, not recognised by any country other than Turkey. It is not surprising that a fugitive from justice is there in that illegal regime. Mr. Nadir obtained his wealth from the illegal expropriation of property owned by Greek Cypriots. That is the sort of man from whom the Tory party was prepared to take money.
    Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Roche: No, time is short.
    The Select Committee was also told by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that the party does not accept donations from foreign Governments. However, he refused to confirm or deny that the party had accepted donations from wealthy foreign individuals such as Mr. Li Ka-Shing and the late Sir Y. K. Pao. Why? What is the definition of a foreign Government? Mr. Li Ka-Shing is a member of the assembly of the Chinese republic. He is a close associate of the Chinese Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "That has been denied."] It has not been denied. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I wish to hear the hon. Lady and I do not wish to have my hearing interrupted by a lot of stupid sounds.
    Mrs. Roche: It has not been denied. That person had close connections with a foreign Government and the allegation has not been denied. In the Select Committee I put all the names to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and, as I pointed out at the beginning, he said:
    "We do not reveal details of people either in this country or overseas who make contributions."
    What nonsense.
    Mr. Graham: Ordinary men and women want to know how the Government have taken £15 million from foreigners. Surely contributions of this kind should be shown in the party's audited accounts. In my constituency, a builder donated a house and the Tory party expected to make £68,000 from raffle tickets costing £500 each. Is there any record of that?
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We just do not have any information about overseas donations to the Conservative party, which refuses to publish proper accounts. In the United States it would be an offence for one of us to make a contribution to the

    253
    Republican party or the Democratic party at federal level—and rightly so, as we are not American citizens. No such rules of propriety govern the Conservative party, which takes money from wherever it can.
    In this regard, the Saudis have been very much in the news today. I am thinking not just of the Government or the royal family but of private individuals.
    Mr. Soley: With regard to the Saudis, the Government have been very defensive. I have received a letter from someone whom I know and in whom I have some confidence. The letter says:
    "Prior to election time a meeting took place in the residence of Prince Sultan Ibn Abdul Aziz in the Boltons, SW 10 between Prince Bandar, son of the aforementioned, and the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to USA, with Michael Heseltine and two other people unknown to me. The subject of the meeting was to aid the Conservative party financially in their efforts against the Labour party. As far as I have been informed by members of the embassy, this task has been delegated to Mr. Hattab Alonzi, Press Attache, via his supervisor, General Ali Al-Shaaier, Minister 'of Communications and Media."
    This source is different from The Guardian article. If similar information had gone to the Conservatives, that party would have looked up the Walworth road accounts. These rumours can be scotched only by the Government's publication of accounts.
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised a very important issue. If the Conservative party has nothing to hide, why does not it disclose the names of foreign donors?
    Mr. Michael Bates: Can the hon. Lady tell us why the Labour party's annual accounts do not list individual donations from trade unions or from individuals?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. The Labour party publishes audited accounts, which are there for everyone to see. Tomorrow the Select
    Committee on Home Affairs will be able to put questions to the party's general secretary. The difference is that we have the "disinfectant of sunlight".
    Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Roche: No. I have given way three times and, as time is limited, I do not intend to do so again.
    The allegations about funding from the Saudis will be raised time and time again until the Conservative party makes proper disclosures or admits that it is wrong to accept donations from foreign nationals. For example, there have been allegations about commission on arms sales. I do not know whether the assertions about where that commission has ended up are correct. It is alleged that it has gone into the coffers of the Tory party. I hope very much that the allegations are wrong, as such behaviour brings British political parties into disrepute. But it is very difficult to obtain answers. I have tried to table questions to the Secretary of State for Defence, but the practice is that Defence Ministers do not answer questions about arms sales. I have therefore tabled questions to the President of the Board of Trade. I have asked about total exports to Saudi Arabia and about commission on them. Most involve weapons. I have been told that information on the proportion of exports involving commission is not available; I wonder why.
    254
    We come back to the question of honours. We are told that it is a mere coincidence that those who contribute to the Conservative party end up with honours: they are just very successful business men. A good deal of academic research has been done and statisticians have concluded that the chance of its being a coincidence that 50 per cent. of honours go to Tory party donors is just under one in 1 million. That is an interesting statistic and I should like to hear a response to it.
    In 1982, Sir William Cayzer, chairman of the fourth largest donor company, British and Commonwealth, received a life peerage. In 1990 the company went into liquidation, costing the City a great deal of money. More than three years ago, in June 1990, the Department of Trade and Industry appointed inspectors to investigate it. I asked the President of the Board of Trade a parliamentary question, which was answered today: I was told that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs had not yet received the inspector's report and that, when he received it, he would consider publication. In view of the donations to the Conservative party totalling more than £800,000, I urge him to publish as soon as possible. The same considerations apply to ballots. Shareholders' views are rarely sought and shareholders are rarely balloted. How different that is from the position of the trade unions.
    Let us see what ordinary, grass-root workers in the Conservative party have had to say. Let us consider what has been said by members of the Charter Movement—long-standing Conservatives—about the culture of secrecy that surrounds the party. Even members elected to its board of finance have been unable to get to the truth of Conservative party funding—and this is the party that constitutes our Government.
    Of course, there are honourable exceptions. Perhaps the leading example is the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who spoke so well tonight. Over the weekend, he said:
    "as long as things are done clandestinely and anonymously there is always a suspicion that they are done for motives that are not appropriate."
    We have heard no arguments tonight that come close to refuting that sensible argument.
    An ICM poll earlier this month showed that 71 per cent. of voters want parties to be legally obliged to disclose details of large donors. It is time that the Conservative party listened to the views of the British public and acted. Let us get some sunlight into its affairs.
    9.12 pm
    Mr. Robin Cook: Let me begin by making a statement with which I hope I can carry the whole House. I welcome the Leader of House to the debate, but regret the necessity that has given rise to his presence.
    Mr. Terry Dicks: I do not believe you.
    Mr. Cook: It seems that I cannot carry the whole House with me after all; I cannot carry the hon. Member—if that is the right term—for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
    Despite what he says, however, I ask the Leader of the House, on behalf of both Front Benches, to convey the concern of the whole House to the President of the Board of Trade, along with our best wishes for his speedy recovery and return to good health. In view of the evident distress of the right hon. Gentleman's wife and family, I

    255
    also invite the Leader of the House to join me in appealing to the press to respect the family's privacy and to give them some peace at this difficult time.
    Had the President of the Board of Trade been able to join us, he would have listened to such a keenly fought debate with his customary relish, although the speeches that caused him pleasure might not have been the speeches that pleased me.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) all had plenty of material with which to develop the powerful case for disclosure; indeed, so strong are the grounds for disclosure that all my hon. Friends were able to deploy their case without engaging in repetition.
    I share the puzzlement felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) about how the Conservative party can have strict rules about the donations that they can receive, when we learn from the party's chief fund raiser that no cheque has ever been refused. It is a curiously drafted rule that never leaves anyone offside.
    As the debate has revealed, it is not just the Labour party that is concerned over the secrecy of donations to the governing party. The speeches from the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) have clearly conveyed the fact that every party in the House, except the Conservative party, accepts the case for more disclosure.
    Even within the Conservative party, there are some who accept the case for disclosure. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a passionate speech on the impossibility of defending secrecy. That speech gained strength from the meretricious arguments of those Conservative Members who attempted to defend that secrecy.
    There were absences from the list of speakers who could not plead ill health. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I had hoped to hear from the four more Tory Members who put in a good word to the Attorney-General for Asil Nadir but have yet to come forward. Why are they so furtive?
    The three Members who have disclosed themselves as having made representations on behalf of Asil Nadir are still in the Government. We have the statement from the Prime Minister that it was not a hanging offence. We have been told that the Secretary of State for National Heritage was only doing his duty as a constituency Member of Parliament.
    We know from the revelations of the past few days that Asil Nadir has several houses. There may have been several more Members doing their duty as constituency Members of Parliament. There must be a simple explanation, and we just want to hear it. Even at this late stage in the debate, I shall make an offer. I am willing to give way four times to any Tory Member who is willing to say that he or she made representations on behalf of that fugitive from British justice. I look forward to the takers with interest.
    Mr. Riddick rose—
    Mr. Cook: How can I resist if the hon. Gentleman may be willing to declare that he made representations or knows who did so?
    Mr. Riddick: I did not make any representations about Mr. Asil Nadir. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) disclosed recently that, as far back as 1984, employees of the Mirror Group expressed concern about the behaviour of Mr. Robert Maxwell. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Labour party has not repaid any of the money to the Maxwell pensioners when it had evidence of what was going on?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Cook: Hon. Members cannot yell, "Answer," if they do not allow me to speak. The answer is perfectly simple. The resolution of the executive committee was that we would repay the money if it came from the Mirror Group pensioners. It was established that it did not come from Mirror Group pensioners, so it has not been paid to Mirror Group pensioners.
    To put matters right, there has been one donation from Robert Maxwell to the Labour party. That donation was declared on the day it was made. There have been no other payments from Robert Maxwell to the Labour party or to the Leader of the Opposition's office. That sole donation is out in the open. This debate is to invite the Government to be just as open in the donations that they have received.
    I am confident that the Secretary of State for Employment is not among those who have made representations on behalf of Asil Nadir. Any hon. Member—
    Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has already disappointed us once. I will not give way again.
    Any hon. Member who believes that the revelations of the last two weeks have demonstrated what he called the integrity of our democratic constitution is a person of such invincible innocence that he has clearly never been tainted by contact with Asil Nadir.
    The Secretary of State suggested that the affiliation fees that we receive from trade unions are the same as the donations that the Conservative party receives. It is late in the debate, but I think that I can speak on behalf of all my hon. Friends when I say that we will withdraw our motion if he is willing to put the acceptance of donations by the Conservative party on the same basis as that on which we accept union affiliations.
    The affiliations that we receive from trade unions are open; they are declared by us and by the trade unions. No trade union affiliates to us in secret. No trade union pays a clandestine £1 million to us, as Hong Kong property developers do to hon. Gentlemen opposite. No foreign trade union affiliates to the Labour party. Trade unions affiliate only if there is a ballot of all members on setting up a political fund. How many companies that pay the hon. Gentlemen carry out a postal ballot of all their shareholders?
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point that his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) refused to answer when she opened the debate? Why does the Labour party not publish a list of private donors?
    Mr. Cook: The answer is very clear. We have said that we will agree to name all donors above an agreed amount if the other parties will do so. Since the hon. Member is ready to identify contributions from high-value donors, which in aggregate come to less than half the sums the Conservative party received from Asil Nadir alone, I have to say that all those included in that list of high-value donors are well below any sum of which that lot opposite will agree to list the donors.
    I have already said that, even when the majority in those trade unions vote to set up a political fund, the minority have a right to opt out. What shareholder ever has the right to opt out of a donation to the Conservative party from a company?
    We were told that donations to the Conservative party were freely given and freely received. No consumer is getting a rebate from Thames Water for its donation of £50,000 to the Conservative party. That was not freely given; those consumers cannot opt out of buying their water from Thames Water They cannot opt out of that forced contribution to the Conservative party.
    I will give way to any hon. Member who is willing to answer this challenge. If they are so worried about trade union funding, why do they not bring their own sources of income up to the same standard? Why do they not give an open declaration of all big paymasters? Why do they not give every shareholder a vote on those donations? Why do they not give those shareholders the right to opt out if they do not agree? Why do they not have a certification officer to make sure that those companies obey the law and declare their donations?
    If they do that, they will raise their sources of income to the same level as the trade union affiliations. If they do not, they should stop criticising a source of payment that is more open, more democratic and less forced than anything that they practise on the income side.
    The Secretary of State issued another challenge. He said that this debate was all about state funding: that we want to get our hands on taxpayers' money. I will not take any lectures from hon. Members on this score. This Government would need a fork-lift truck to carry along Whitehall the money that they have poured into bogus advertising campaigns.
    What did they do when they found that the public opposed school tests? They helped themselves to a quarter of a million pounds of taxpayers' money to convince the public that they were wrong and the Government were right.
    The Secretary of State for Employment said that, if we want a party, we should pay for it. I say to them that, if they want an advertising campaign for their policy, they should pay for it.
    Mr. David Sumberg rose—
    Mr. Cook: No, I will not give way; I want to deal with the Secretary of State.
    He ended his speech by accusing my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) of making a speech of sleaze and smears. That would have been a more convincing accusation had it not been carefully typed in advance.
    Let us look at what Lord McAlpine said—Lord McAlpine who has found the funds to pay for four election victories for the Conservatives and is so doubtful of the result that he is now in permanent exile.
    258
    Last night, I saw Lord McAlpine being interviewed on television about whether he and the President of the Board of Trade had talked about Asil Nadir. His reply was:
    "Why come to Venice to talk about a sleazy fellow like that?"
    It was not we who were saying that one of the biggest donors to the Tory party in modern times was a sleazy fellow. It was the man who took the money who was now calling him a sleazy fellow.
    It was not always thus. This sleazy fellow was six times in Downing street and was once at Chequers for lunch. He received a letter from Lady Thatcher which said:
    "I cannot thank you enough. It was a marvellous encouragement to know that you were so committed to the cause in which we believe."
    Sadly, what was a marvellous encouragement has now turned into a marvellous embarrassment, proving the truth of the saying among my people that he who lies down with dogs will surely rise with fleas.
    We were told in the debate that it was all right for the Tories to have taken the stolen money because they did not know at the time that it was stolen. I shall tell them what they did know. They knew that Asil Nadir had not declared his donation. The company accounts are on the public record, and what they say is unmistakable.
    The company accounts of Polly Peck for 1987–88, the year to which the letter from Lady Thatcher refers, say:
    "No political donations were made."
    We have had repeated statements that it is not for the Conservative party to obey the law, but for the donors to the Conservative party to obey the law. Yes, but it is not just for the donors to observe the law; it is for Government to enforce observance of the law.
    For over a year, it has been public knowledge that Asil Nadir made donations to the Tory party. For over a year, Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry have known that the Companies Acts were being broken by the failure to declare those donations. For over a year, no charges have been brought. When Companies house was asked why no charges had been brought, it said:
    "We don't have a proactive role."
    Here is the party of law and order. Why is the party of law and order not proactive on the issue of an offence against the law? Why has not one charge been brought under this head? Is it simply that a Conservative Government would be too embarrassed if the directors were convicted of making a donation without legally declaring it, because it would strengthen the pressure on the Conservative party to give it back?
    The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made a speech today in which he repeated his assurance that it was not the policy of the Conservative party to take money that was obtained illegally, and that he would give it back if it was proven to be stolen. Having worked us up, he rather left us disappointed by saying that he could not give a snap reaction to Touche Ross. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it was 601 days since he had had the previous letter from Touche Ross, one might have thought that he would be better prepared for the next one.
    This is not a private dispute between the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and Touche Ross; it is a public scandal. The nation will judge the party by its response. It will judge it on information already in the public domain, such as the information that the payments to the Tory party came from the same offshore account in Jersey in respect of which Asil Nadir has been charged

    259
    with making illegal payments, and that three of the payments to the Conservative party were made within days—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's last remark, in which he made the accusation if illegal payments, is somewhat out of order at this stage.
    Mr. Cook: I was under the impression, Madam Speaker, that I had said that Asil Nadir had been charged with making illegal payments. The charge sheet is specific, and spells out the days on which the alleged illegal payments were made. Three of the payments to the Tory party were made within days of payments to that same account which relate to the charges in the trial.
    What more proof does the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield want? We know that the donor has been charged in respect of that stolen money. By any decent standard, that should be enough. The Conservative party should stop its prevarication and give the money back now.
    The right hon. Gentleman also reminded us today that it was an offence to buy honours. He did not repeat to the Select Committee his statement that there was no correlation between donations to the Tory party and honours for company directors. I am glad that he did not repeat that assertion today. When I first read it, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been around too long, that he was in danger of believing too many impossible things, and that it might he in his interest to consider another resignation, this time to spend more time with Group 4.
    The companies that make donations to the Tory party make up 5 per cent. of the companies registered in Britain, and 50 per cent. of the companies with directors who have received honours. They make up one third of the top 50 companies in Britain, and two thirds of the two companies that received honours.
    Mr. Bates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman can explain that correlation, I shall happily give way.
    Mr. Bates: By casting doubt on the manner in which awards are given, is the hon. Gentleman doubting the credibility and integrity of the Labour Privy Councillor who was a member of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee?
    Mr. Cook: No, of course I am not. The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that the Committee vets the names in front of it; it does not choose the names, which come through the members of the Treasury Bench. It is members of the Treasury Bench who decide that the honours should be targeted on some industrialists. It is not open to the Committee to search for other industrialists who may deserve the honour more.
    Let us be clear and fair to the right hon. Gentleman. The charge that he must answer is not that he ever arranged with the noble Lords to meet around the back of a motorway service station to pick up his bung and hand over the gong. The charge is much more urbane. Word gets around that the chances of a peerage or knighthood are generously multiplied by generous donations to the Conservative party.
    Mr. David Hunt: I have done some research. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the proportion of those receiving important honours and contributing to the Conservative party since 1979 is the same proportion as received honours under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Cook: As not a single company made a donation to the previous Labour Government, that comment beggars belief. It was the practice of our previous Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, to consult Walworth road to ensure that no industrialist that he nominated had ever made a donation to the Labour party. There is no substance whatsoever in the right hon. Gentleman's claim.
    If one considers the 12 companies that have made the largest donations to the Tory party over the past 10 years, one finds that 10 have now received honours for their directors. There is a correlation. As a matter of fact, it is an 83 per cent. correlation.
    Can the Leader of the House explain that dramatic correlation? Can he explain the credibility gap between the £19 million that the Tory party declared in donations and the £3·7 million declared by British companies last year? Where did the millions in between come from? When that question was asked during the opening speech, a voice from the Government Benches cried out, "Coffee mornings." I would love to see the audited accounts of those coffee mornings; even Turkish coffee mornings cannot raise the difference between £3·7 million and £19 million.
    As long as the Conservatives do not publish their accounts, the suspicion must remain that the difference comes from large donations from private individuals—large donations which, in some respects, are even worse than company donations, because they are not published. The danger of secret donations is that they leave public government under private obligation.
    We are not talking about people who put a fiver in an envelope and send it off to central office. People misguided enough to do that are entitled to privacy, to shield them from the ridicule of their neighbours. They will never be invited to dinner at Chequers; directors of communications of the Tory party will not write in their memoirs about lunches at Granby's trying to convince them that their fiver has been well spent on a marketing effort.
    We are not talking about donations of £5 or £10; we are talking about the £2 million that John Latsis is alleged to have given. That donation has never been denied during the debate. If the Leader of the House wishes to deny now that such a donation was made, I shall happily give way to him to enable him to do so.
    I am rather surprised that John Latsis should be so anxious to help the democratic process at work, because the previous Government that he supported with such large sums was the rule of the Greek colonels, who were given more to arresting their opponents than to arguing with them. What is the Conservative party doing dipping into the same source as Karamanlis? What is John Latsis doing investing his money in the Conservative party? What are foreigners doing bankrolling the election expenses of a party when they have no vote in the election for which they are contributing the money?
    In case it should be alleged that what we say is more innuendos and smears from the Labour party, the Leader of the House should bear in mind what Lord McAlpine

    261
    said last week when he was asked where he got his money. He answered that it came from Greek shipping magnates, Hong Kong millionaires and Americans, adding:
    "There were always a few Americans giving maybe $25,000, but it wasn't millions."
    Taken together, those sums certainly amounted to millions.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: No, I shall finish in a moment.
    Lord McAlpine went on to say that there were always
    "tons of offshore accounts".
    Britain has no right to interfere in the elections of foreign countries, and foreigners have no right to interfere in the elections of this country. That is not just a matter for the Conservatives—
    Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to call into question the integrity of so many people, especially senior captains of British industry? [Interruption] He calls people's integrity into question, and he should put up or shut up.
    Madam Speaker: Hon. Members are responsible for the comments that they make. It is up to them.
    Mr. Cook: It was not I who produced the Greek shipping magnates, the Hong Kong millionaires and the Americans. It was Lord McAlpine, the party treasurer. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and his hon. Friends were only too happy to take the money, so long as it remained secret.
    This is not just a matter for the Conservatives; it is an issue for the nation. The Government are the nation's Government—God help it. The nation is entitled to know who the Government's paymasters are. Whatever the Government have to hide, the damage to their credibility cannot be worse than the frank consternation that they have shown since they were asked to open the books.
    There is another reason why I believe that the Conservatives have been damaged by the events of the past week. It is the contrast between what the Conservative Government preach and what the Conservative party does. The Government preach open government, but the Conservative party will not even open its books. The Government preach sound money, but the party cannot even come up with audited accounts. The Government preach law and order, but the Conservative party will not give back the cash that it took from a fugitive from British justice.
    No contrast is more offensive than the sight of the Government, even as they sharpen their knife to pare down the benefits of invalids and disabled people, being exposed as touching the wealthiest people in the world to pay their own party bills. The party of the foreign millionaire cannot be expected to understand the pressures on pensioners at home.
    The best cure for a nasty smell is fresh air from open disclosure. Tonight we shall vote for all parties to open their books and to declare who bankrolls them. Only a party with something to hide will vote to keep the lid on its accounts.
    I warn the Conservative party that the public will not trust a Government who will not trust them with the knowledge of who their paymasters are. The Government
    262
    may vote down our motion tonight, but if they win the vote in the Lobby, they will lose the confidence of the nation.
    9.39 pm
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): May I begin by responding to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in the terms with which he, quite properly, very courteously started his speech when he expressed sympathy for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and for his family and asked that they should be left alone during the President's current difficulties. I know that my right hon. Friend will be grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said and that that sentiment will be shared by all Conservative Members.
    As a result of what has happened to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I find myself somewhat unexpectedly taking part in this debate which has undoubtedly been a debate of—how shall I put it?—considerable interest.
    The most engaging contribution was perhaps that made from the Liberal Benches by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) if only because the hon. Gentleman engagingly acknowledged that the last people who would universally be accepted to have sold honours in this country were the last Liberal Government. Indeed, I have a copy of the price list—[Interruption.] This may be of some historical interest. According to the price list, a knighthood cost £12,000. However, that is at 1920s prices—the mind boggles. A baronetcy—we do not have those these days—cost £35,000; and a peerage cost from £50,000 to £100,000.
    That was of interest, but the most interesting thing about the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, engaging as it was, was his ineffable optimism—although that was perhaps complimentary to me—in suggesting that I might be able to talk him out of a position, into which he had clearly already arrived, where he said he was going to vote for a motion with 90 per cent. of which he disagreed. That task is clearly beyond me if he got himself into that position at the start.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said when he opened the debate for the Government, we, and I particularly as Leader of the House, have spent several weeks during which time the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the shadow Leader of the House, demanded from me week by week Supply days to discuss worthy and weighty subjects such as Bosnia, the economy and defence.
    However, we are now debating this subject when only three days ago, when he was about to travel to Copenhagen, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said on the "Today" programme that the economy was the
    "number one item on the agenda of the socialist leaders."
    So what did the right hon. and learned Gentleman do? As soon as he had flown back from Copenhagen, he came in to Prime Minister's Question Time and focused on these disreputable allegations. He followed that up with today's debate in which one piece of smear and innuendo followed another.
    The reason for all that is, from the Labour party's point of view, that there is not enough bad news about. Unemployment is falling. Retail sales have been rising. The housing market and the car industry are growing. The

    263
    European Community is saying that ours will be the fastest growing economy in Europe, both this year and next year. No wonder the Opposition do not want to debate the economy and engage instead in this diversionary tactic.
    That is the first reason for this debate. The second reason, which has become increasingly clear as the debate has progressed, is that the Labour party really wants the taxpayer to bail out the crumbling finances of the Labour party. I suspect that the electorate would be heartily suspicious of having to dig into their pockets to fund the campaigning and political activities of political parties. In the case of the Labour party, they would, frankly, be bound to wonder whether it was not a case of pouring good money after bad in financing one election defeat after another. It is typical of the Labour party that when it cannot get people to dig into their own pocket voluntarily to fund it, it wants to introduce a law to make them do so.
    I make no apology for repeating something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said. We take the view that the voluntary principle is a strength of our political system. It contributes to participation in politics and to close contact between parties and the electorate. As my right hon. Friend said, none of us can see how, in a country in which voting is not compulsory, it would be right to force voters to pay for political parties. Why should life-long Labour supporters pay for the refurbishment of central office or staunch Conservatives have their taxes diverted to bale out the Labour party?
    I make no bones about the fact that we remain wedded to the principle that where individuals make donations for political or, for that matter, charitable purposes, they are entitled to the right of privacy, if that is what they wish.
    To reiterate what my right hon. Friend said, the Conservative party does not accept money with strings attached; it does not accept donations which it has reason to believe contain illegally obtained moneys; it does not accept donations from foreign Governments; and it does not accept donations from unknown sources.
    As my right hon. Friend also said—and this brings me to another point of interest—if the money from Polly Peck proves to have been stolen, it will be paid back. What I want to know is whether we will get the same guarantee about the Maxwell money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Answer, for the moment, was there none.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman will recall—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell the truth, Robin."] I have always told the House the truth. I told the House the truth in my speech. The money was checked to discover whether it had come from the pension fund; it did not come from the Maxwell pension fund, from which money was stolen by Maxwell. [Interruption.] lf, at any stage, that money, which was received in 1986, is proved to have been stolen, the Labour party will, of course, consider repaying it.
    Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman will have realised from some of the sedentary comments around me, some of us remember what the hon. Gentleman said during the general election. Frankly, I do not think that his comments tonight were any better.
    I have been looking at a story which appeared in one of the newspapers in December 1991.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: Which one?
    Mr. Newton: The Daily Mail. [Interruption.] It is of some interest, because it stated:
    "Senior Labour MPs were warned seven years ago about possible threats to the Mirror pension fund when Robert Maxwell bought the newspaper group, it was revealed yesterday.
    Shadow Cabinet member"—
    he was then—
    "Bryan Gould admitted that they took no action despite their suspicions. He said that, not being in Government, there was nothing they could do."
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Daily Mail, in a recent leader, called upon all political parties, including the Conservative party, to declare all donations of more than £10,000?
    Mr. Newton: That conflicts slightly with some of the derision from Labour Members when I mentioned the Daily Mail. I disagree with the proposal in the Daily Mail. I see that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has not been able to come back for the end of the debate. Leaving aside what the hon. Member for Livingston is saying, I want to ask the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East whether the money will be repaid if it is shown that it was illegally obtained. Against the background of what is known about Maxwell, I do not know what inquiries entitle him to say that the money was legally obtained.
    On the "Today" programme on Saturday, when John Humphrys asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the straight and direct question:
    "Well, you could give the Robert Maxwell money back to the pension fund, couldn't you?",
    he got a reply that fell conspicuously short of even offering to consider the point.
    Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that £80 million went missing from a Maxwell company and a Labour Front-Bench spokesman, who took £750,000 of that amount, is sitting in the House of Lords representing the Labour party?
    Mr. Newton: I heard that point made earlier, but I have yet to hear it convincingly disposed of by the Labour Front Bench.
    The speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was not one of her better ones. Indeed, I thought that she might have recruited one of the script writers from "Eldorado". She started with a great list of people who had apparently been given honours on a dubious basis by the Conservative party. One could almost see the right hon. Lady collapse when, in the following speech, it emerged that the chairman of United Biscuits got his first honour in a Labour list. I then made the point that the person who is now Lord Hanson received his knighthood in the lavender list, no less.
    We then heard about all of the foreign donations with much talk of Saudi Arabia. That was reinforced even after repeated denials by those who are said to have been involved by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). That collapsed in the face of a statement issued today by the person who was said to have been involved, Prince Bandar, the ambassador of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United States. The statement specifically says that all the allegations in The Guardian today are,
    "untrue and wholly without foundation. No such meeting took place and neither Prince Bandar bin Sultan nor anyone connected with the Saudi Arabian government has made

    265
    donations to the Conservative party, whether directly or indirectly, or been asked for such donations. Also, HRH Prince Bandar was not in England during the month of March."
    In the catalogue of allegations from Labour Members, we came to Mr. Li Ka-Shing. There has been a good deal of dispute on points of order and so on about the precise position of Business Age in all of this. I shall put on record the letter, of which I have a copy, signed by the editor of that magazine to the solicitors, Denton Hall Burgin and Warrens, dated 21 June 1993 and countersigned as agreed by those solicitors. I quote:
    "In accordance with our agreement we state below the terms in which this matter is settled.
    The terms are as follows:
    1. We will publish in Business Age No. 34 July 1993 an apology extending to the bulk of the right hand side of page 9. This apology will appear in the top column of the right hand page, at page 9 in the section entitled 'Follow Through from previous issues.' in the following terms:
    Li Ka-Shing
    An apology
    In Business Age No. 32 May 1993 we published an article entitled 'Tory money' in the course of which it could be inferred that Li Ka-Shing improperly sought financial favours for himself or for companies with which he was connected.
    We are satisfied that any such suggestion is entirely baseless. Li Ka-Shing has informed us that he neither sought nor received any favours. We accept that the article was based on information that we now know to be without any foundation whatsoever."
    It goes on to list some specific points. It concludes:
    "Business Age and its Editor undertake not, at any time in the future, to publish the same or similar statements about Li Ka-Shing, as made in the article referred to above. Provided we comply with the above Mr. Li Ka-Shing will withdraw the threat of legal action against us and indeed not take any further legal action with regard to the article published in Business Age No. 32 May 1993."
    I will quote the immortal last sentence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Immoral."] I said immortal. It says:
    "It is also hoped that normal harmonious relations; with Mr. Li Ka-Shing will resume after the apology is published."
    Mr. Robin Cook rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.
    Mr. Cook: The Leader of the House will now acknowledge that none of that retraction does anything to withdraw the essential allegation by which the magazine stands that Li Ka-Shing was a major donor to Tory party funds. Will he answer yes or no? Did he receive a large donation from Li Ka-Shing? Yes or no in the four minutes that remain.
    Mr. Newton: I will start answering in those terms—
    Mr. Cook rose—
    Mr. Newton: No. No. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order before we proceed any further.
    Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no."] Nothing could have more conclusively demonstrated the Labour party's purpose in the debate than the way in which every time that allegations are shot down the Labour party seeks to repeat the very allegations that have been shot down.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Newton: No. I will not give way at this stage. That is the story of what this has been about. It has been about the desire to conduct, in the way that it has been conducted, a plain, straightforward campaign of smear and innuendo whatever information has come to hand. At the end of it all, what is it all about? It is about the fact that the one party in Britain with which one can buy votes and influence is the Labour party.
    I remind the occupants of the Labour Front Bench, even though they know it already, of what the then Labour party treasuer said only eight months ago:
    "I have a duty to say to those people who want to loosen the union link: look at our income figures"—
    [Interruption]—and then Mr. Tom Sawyer said: "No say, no pay." That is the message.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided:: Ayes 250, Noes 291.

    Division No. 303]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ainger, Nick

    Darling, Alistair

    Allen, Graham

    Davidson, Ian

    Alton, David

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Denham, John

    Ashton, Joe

    Dewar, Donald

    Austin-Walker, John

    Dixon, Don

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dobson, Frank

    Barron, Kevin

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Battle, John

    Dowd, Jim

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bell, Stuart

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Enright, Derek

    Benton, Joe

    Etherington, Bill

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Betts, Clive

    Fatchett, Derek

    Blunkett, David

    Faulds, Andrew

    Boateng, Paul

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Boyes, Roland

    Fisher, Mark

    Bradley, Keith

    Flynn, Paul

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

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

    Foulkes, George

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Fraser, John

    Burden, Richard

    Fyfe, Maria

    Byers, Stephen

    Galbraith, Sam

    Caborn, Richard

    Gapes, Mike

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Gould, Bryan

    Canavan, Dennis

    Graham, Thomas

    Cann, Jamie

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Clapham, Michael

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Gunnell, John

    Clelland, David

    Hain, Peter

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hall, Mike

    Coffey, Ann

    Hardy, Peter

    Cohen, Harry

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Connarty, Michael

    Harvey, Nick

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Corbett, Robin

    Henderson, Doug

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cryer, Bob

    Hoey, Kate

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Dafis, Cynog

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    267

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hoyle, Doug

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Pope, Greg

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hutton, John

    Prescott, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Ingram, Adam

    Purchase, Ken

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Redmond, Martin

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Reid, Dr John

    Jowell, Tessa

    Rendel, David

    Keen, Alan

    Richardson, Jo

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Rogers, Allan

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rooney, Terry

    Lewis, Terry

    Rowlands, Ted

    Litherland, Robert

    Ruddock, Joan

    Livingstone, Ken

    Salmond, Alex

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Loyden, Eddie

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Short, Clare

    McAllion, John

    Simpson, Alan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCartney, Ian

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McKelvey, William

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

    Mackinlay, Andrew

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

    McLeish, Henry

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Snape, Peter

    McMaster, Gordon

    Soley, Clive

    McNamara, Kevin

    Spellar, John

    Mahon, Alice

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Mandelson, Peter

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stevenson, George

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Stott, Roger

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Martlew, Eric

    Straw, Jack

    Maxton, John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Meacher, Michael

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Michael, Alun

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Turner, Dennis

    Milburn, Alan

    Tyler, Paul

    Miller, Andrew

    Vaz, Keith

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wallace, James

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Walley, Joan

    Morley, Elliot

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Watson, Mike

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mudie, George

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Mullin, Chris

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Murphy, Paul

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Winnick, David

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Wise, Audrey

    O'Hara, Edward

    Worthington, Tony

    Olner, William

    Wray, Jimmy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Parry, Robert

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Patchett, Terry

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

    Pendry, Tom

    Mr. Alan Meale.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Ashby, David

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Amess, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Ancram, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    268

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Baldry, Tony

    French, Douglas

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fry, Peter

    Bates, Michael

    Gale, Roger

    Batiste, Spencer

    Gallie, Phil

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bendall, Vivian

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Garnier, Edward

    Bitten, Rt Hon John

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Body, Sir Richard

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Booth, Hartley

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boswell, Tim

    Gorst, John

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Bowis, John

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hague, William

    Brazier, Julian

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Bright, Graham

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hannam, Sir John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Burns, Simon

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burt, Alistair

    Hawksley, Warren

    Butcher, John

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Butler, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hendry, Charles

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hicks, Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cash, William

    Horam, John

    Clappison, James

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

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

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Howell, Sir Ralph (North

    Congdon, David

    Norfolk)

    Conway, Derek

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Couchman, James

    Jack, Michael

    Cran, James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

    Jessel, Toby

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Key, Robert

    Dicks, Terry

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dorrell, Stephen

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knapman, Roger

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Duncan, Alan

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

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

    Dunn, Bob

    Knox, Sir David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Eggar, Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Evennett, David

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Faber, David

    Lidington, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lightbown, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lord, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Luff, Peter

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Maclean, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    269

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Shersby, Michael

    Madel, David

    Sims, Roger

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Malone, Gerald

    Soames, Nicholas

    Mans, Keith

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Marland, Paul

    Spencer Sir Derek

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Sproat, Iain

    Merchant, Piers

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Stephen, Michael

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Stern, Michael

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stewart, Allan

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Streeter, Gary

    Needham, Richard

    Sumberg, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Sweeney, Walter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Sykes, John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Norris, Steve

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Thomason, Roy

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Page, Richard

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Paice, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Townend, John (Bridlinglon)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

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

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Tracey, Richard

    Pawsey, James

    Tredinnick, David

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Trend, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Viggers, Peter.

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Walden, George

    Rathbone, Tim

    Waller, Gary

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Ward, John

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Richards, Rod

    Wells, Bowen

    Riddick, Graham

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Whitney, Ray

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Whittingdale, John

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wilkinson, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Willetts, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Wilshire, David

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Sackville, Tom

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Wood, Timothy

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Yeo, Tim

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Tellers Tor the Noes:

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 249.

    Division No. 304

    [10.13 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Ashby, David

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Baker. Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Amess, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Ancram, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Arbuthnot, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bates, Michael

    270

    Batiste, Spencer

    Gallie, Phil

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bendall, Vivian

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Garnier, Edward

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Body, Sir Richard

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Booth, Hartley

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boswell, Tim

    Gorst, John

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Bowis, John

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hague, William

    Brazier, Julian

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Bright, Graham

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hannam, Sir John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Burns, Simon

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burt, Alistair

    Hawksley, Warren

    Butcher, John

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Butler, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hendry, Charles

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hicks, Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cash, William

    Horam, John

    Clappison, James

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

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

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Congdon, David

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunter, Andrew

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jack, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jessel, Toby

    Couchman, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Cran, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Day, Stephen

    Key, Robert

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Devlin, Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Knapman, Roger

    Dicks, Terry

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

    Dover, Den

    Knox, Sir David

    Duncan, Alan

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Dunn, Bob

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Eggar, Tim

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lidington, David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lightbown, David

    Evennett, David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Faber, David

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Luff, Peter

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fishburn, Dudley

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Forman, Nigel

    MacKay Andrew

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Maclean, David

    Forth, Eric

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Madel, David

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Malone, Gerald

    French, Douglas

    Mans, Keith

    Fry, Peter

    Marland, Paul

    Gale, Roger

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    271

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Merchant, Piers

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Milligan. Stephen

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Sproat, Iain

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Steen, Anthony

    Needham, Richard

    Stephen, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Streeter, Gary

    Nicholls. Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Sykes, John

    Norris, Steve

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Page, Richard

    Thomason, Roy

    Paice, James

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thurnham, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

    Pickles, Eric

    Tracey, Richard

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Tredinnick, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Trend, Michael

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rathbone, Tim

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Viggers, Peter

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Richards, Rod

    Walden, George

    Riddick, Graham

    Waller, Gary

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Ward, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Wardle. Charles (Bexhill)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wells, Bowen

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Whittingdale, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Wilkinson, John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Willetts. David

    Sackville, Tom

    Wilshire, David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wood, Timothy

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Yeo, Tim

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Young. Rt Hon Sir George

    Shersby, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Boyes, Roland

    Ainger, Nick

    Bradley. Keith

    Allen, Graham

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Alton, David

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Burden, Richard

    Ashton, Joe

    Byers, Stephen

    Austin-Walker, John

    Caborn, Richard

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Barron, Kevin

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Battle, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Beckett. Rt Hon Margaret

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Bell, Stuart

    Canavan, Dennis

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Cann, Jamie

    Benton, Joe

    Clapham, Michael

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Betts, Clive

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Blunkett, David

    Clelland, David

    Boateng, Paul

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    272

    Coffey, Ann

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cohen, Harry

    Keen, Alan

    Connarty, Michael

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Corbett, Robin

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Cousins, Jim

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cryer, Bob

    Lewis, Terry

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Litherland, Robert

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dafis, Cynog

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Darling, Alistair

    Loyden, Eddie

    Davidson, Ian

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    McAllion, John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McCartney, Ian

    Denham, John

    McKelvey, William

    Dewar, Donald

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Dixon, Don

    McLeish, Henry

    Dobson, Frank

    Maclennan, Robert

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dowd, Jim

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Mahon, Alice

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Mandelson, Peter

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Enright, Derek

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Etherington, Bill

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Martlew, Eric

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Maxton, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Meacher, Michael

    Faulds, Andrew

    Michael, Alun

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Fisher, Mark

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Flynn, Paul

    Milburn, Alan

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Miller, Andrew

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Foulkes, George

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fraser, John

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fyfe, Maria

    Morley, Elliot

    Galbraith, Sam

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Gapes, Mike

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mudie, George

    Gordon, Mildred

    Mullin, Chris

    Gould, Bryan

    Murphy, Paul

    Graham, Thomas

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Grocott, Bruce

    Olner, William

    Gunnell, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hain, Peter

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hall, Mike

    Parry, Robert

    Hardy, Peter

    Patchett. Terry

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Pendry, Tom

    Harvey, Nick

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Pike, Peter L.

    Henderson, Doug

    Pope, Greg

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hoey, Kate

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Prescott, John

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Purchase, Ken

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hoyle, Doug

    Randall, Stuart

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Redmond, Martin

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Reid, Dr John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Rendel, David

    Hutton, John

    Richardson, Jo

    Illsley, Eric

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Ingram, Adam

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Rooney, Terry

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Rowlands, Ted

    273

    Ruddock, Joan

    Turner, Dennis

    Salmond, Alex

    Tyler, Paul

    Sheerman, Barry

    Vaz, Keith

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wallace, James

    Short, Clare

    Walley, Joan

    Simpson, Alan

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wareing, Robert N

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Watson, Mike

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

    Welsh, Andrew

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

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Snape, Peter

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Soley, Clive

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Spellar, John

    Wilson, Brian

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Winnick, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wise, Audrey

    Stevenson, George

    Worthington, Tony

    Stott, Roger

    Wray, Jimmy

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Straw, Jack

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mr. Alan Meale and

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

    Tipping, Paddy

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House believes that the principle of voluntary funding underpins the strength of democratic parties in this country; records its concern at the purchase by trade unions of votes in the election of the Labour Party leadership, the selection of candidates and of votes on policy at Labour's Party Conference sufficient to secure binding commitments; and calls upon the Labour Party to end the control over its policy, organisation and leadership wielded by a small number of trade union leaders.

PETITIONS

  Fuel (VAT)
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to present a petition:
  To the Honourable The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the petition of residents in Coventry, Sheweth That the recent announcement of VAT increases on Gas and Electricity bills has filled the people of Coventry with deep concern because of the consequential hardship these increases will have on Old Age Pensioners, One-Parent Families and, in general, poorer members of society. They believe these increases to be to the long-term detriment of the least well off people of Coventry and the nation.
  A total of 2,300 people in Coventry have expressed their concern by signing the petition because they feel that the increases are neither economically nor socially justified.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take measures to see that these Increases will not proceed because of the social and economic hardship for many Pensioners, One-Parent Families and Communities.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pensions and Benefits (Payment)
  10.27 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to ask leave to present a petition:
  To the Honourable The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of sub-post office users in Halifax, West Yorkshire sheweth that they are against the removal by the Government of their right to receive pension and benefit payments at local post offices. Wherefore, we request that your Honourable House request the Government to give people the right to choose to receive pension and benefit payments at their local post office; recognising the benefits of this to individual and community.
  Nearly 10,000 people in Halifax have signed the petition.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Sudan
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: This debate gives us the opportunity to raise the issue of Sudan and the Government's policy towards it. It has been sadly neglected. A tragedy has been occurring there on a scale comparable to that in Bosnia and Somalia, but relatively little attention has been paid to it, although the amount of human suffering has been intense. It has been called the silent death of Sudan.
  As the Minister will know, I recently visited the part of Sudan under the control of the Khartoum Government. I went there in the company of the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), who regrets that he cannot be here tonight. I want to raise questions arising from that visit. Obviously, if the Minister cannot deal with all the issues during the debate, I will be pleased to receive a letter from him afterwards.
  I express my appreciation to the Overseas Development Administration and the Foreign Office for the assistance given to us. In particular, I thank our ambassador in Khartoum, Mr. Peter Streams, for the immense help that he and his staff gave, for the very fine work that he does in representing Britain there and for the concern that he shows for the suffering of the Sudanese people.
  Perhaps understandably, we have been obsessed by Bosnia and, to a lesser extent, Somalia. Totally inadequate attention has been given to the tragic events in Sudan, a country of great size, variety and charm, with which, of course, Britain has the closest associations.
  The term ethnic cleansing has been used and deplored extensively with regard to Bosnia, but it is also applicable to Sudan. We have had the accusation that fundamentalist Islam is seeking to impose its doctrinaire vision not just on the Christian south, but on those Muslims who do not share its purist view.
  We also have the cries for help from the Nuba mountains, where the Nuba people claim that their ethnicity, their whole way of life, is being eliminated.
  Unfortunately, the outside world is not allowed to see how great the physical, human and social destruction has been. There is no doubt that the scale of misery is huge. No one who has seen the starvation that has occurred in the south can be in any doubt that this is a tragedy of immense proportions. It is a tragedy that has many dimensions.
  Literally millions of people have been displaced as a consequence of the civil war that has been going on for 10 years. Apart from the refugees to other lands from Sudan, there are over 1 million people in huge camps around Khartoum. They have been forced to live miles from anywhere, in the desert, in hot, windy conditions, where food, water and medical facilities are completely inadequate. In the past, their primitive homes around Khartoum have been demolished and they have been forcibly moved in their tens of thousands further out in the desert. It is safe to say that in Sudan as a whole there are 2 million to 3 million internally displaced people.
  We now face the appalling problems whereby previously self-reliant people are dependent on being fed; they are not able to feed themselves and the international community is forced to feed combatants in a war.
  276
  In the Nuba mountains, the international aid organisations have been excluded. Many villages have been destroyed and tens of thousands of women and children have been separated from their menfolk. The Nuba people have been stripped of their lands, which have been sold to Arab business men and mechanised; the soil has been degraded and the Nuba have been used as cheap labour. The environmental consequences of this mechanised farming have been devastating.
  There are appalling stories of so-called peace camps, where aid is delivered only in return for religious allegiance. Certainly the Nuba people themselves feel that their whole cultural identity is being frontally attacked.
  The Sudanese human rights record has been condemned by the United Nations by 104 votes to eight and the United Nations rapporteur, Dr. Biro, has made it absolutely clear that there are great abuses of human rights in Sudan. Amnesty International has also made it clear that people routinely disappear in that country. In our visit to Juba, we personally established that over 50 people caught in the Juba disturbances of last summer and autumn have disappeared, with no proper trial and no information being given to their relatives about whether they are alive or dead. There is the fully documented instance of ghost houses or secret detention centres being used for the interrogation and torture of detainees without any reference to family or lawyers.
  Political parties are banned and since our stay a large number of people associated with the former democratically elected Prime Minister Al Mandi have been detained. The regime are now attacking their fellow Muslims as well as the Christians they have attacked before.
  But, of course, much of the concern in this country has come from the Christian churches, because of the difficulties which have been put in the way of worship in Sudan. At the heart of the problem is the determination by the military dictatorship in Khartoum that the country will be run under a system of sharia—the imposition of a religious state. which is inevitably uncomfortable for those not of that faith, or not of that version of the faith.
  The witness of Christians, for example, is not allowed in Sharia courts. Sharia extends to all areas of life, including banking and education. Public education systems have been Arabised and Islamised. It is inevitable that that gives second-class citizenship to all Christians or others not of a fundamentalist disposition. How can there be peace within a religious state in a multicultural society? Sharia means that religion determines national identity and is the framework for the political and civil structure. Religion allocates power and resources. There are bound to be problems in a multi-religious, multicultural state such as Sudan, where there is no equality between believers.
  Economically, the country is bankrupt. The World bank has withdrawn from a country that does not pay its debts and there is an immense flight of private capital. Behind all the problems has been a civil war which has gone on for 10 years. The country is in dire trouble. There is formally a ceasefire, but the rebels in the south are now in factions and there is still fighting between those factions.
  The Sudanese Government have no monopoly on brutality or on abuses of human rights. Appalling atrocities have been committed by the southern forces as well. The factions in the south have been impeding the delivery of food, with all the tragic consequences we have seen on our television screens. What has been especially

  277
  repulsive has been the way in which innocent Sudanese people have been starved for political or military purposes by all sides. In addition to the already complex situation, the Arab versus African dimension and the Islam versus Christian dimension, there is now a major inter-tribal conflict in the south of the country.
  We now come to what we can and must do on our own, with our EC partners and with the United Nations. I cannot stress enough that, because of our colonial history, Britain is the country above all to which ordinary Sudanese look for help from the outside world. That came across to us with enormous force on our visit there. What can we do? First, we must do all that we can to ensure that Dr. Biro's work to investigate the human rights situation in Sudan is aided as far as possible. We must ensure that ordinary citizens can go about their business without fear and that the Sudanese Government give full access to Dr. Biro and his team. He must start his work soon and he must be fully resourced to do that work. What assurances can the Government give on that?
  We have to insist that all parts of the country are open to international observers. The Sudanese Government say that they have nothing to hide. Let the Sudanese Government prove that. There is particular concern about the Nuba mountains. We must know whether there have been massacres and on what scale, what displacement has occurred and what abuse of human rights there has been, as has been extensively reported in this country and elsewhere.
  The international non-governmental agencies—the aid organisations—are not allowed to work in those parts of the country. Only Sudanese Islamic relief organisations are allowed to work there. For the protection of those people, we must insist that the international aid organisations can work there. There must be unhindered access for humanitarian work. What pressure are the Government applying to allow that to occur? What has been the finding of an EC troika, which has recently visited the country? What has it found and what does it say should occur?
  It is not just that the international aid organisations must be allowed to work in the north of the country. There is a continuing problem of access in the south. It is estimated that only one quarter of the population in the south has access to the Operation Lifeline aid programme. The Sudanese Government are also impeding the international NGOs which do not have access to the thousands of southern people who are displaced throughout the country.
  One must be even-handed and say that the factions in the south also impede the delivery of food with the appalling consequences that we have seen. Assistance needs to be increased and the logistics from Khartoum and Nairobi to be improved. The world food programme based, or headed up, from Nairobi has been described as overwhelmed by the scale of the task, partly through lack of resources, partly through incompetence and partly because it stops work at the first sign of difficulty while aid organisations such as Goal of Ireland continue their work.
  Richard Dowden in The Independent has been devastatingly critical of the United Nations' performance in Kenya from where southern Sudan has to be serviced. What is the Government's view? What are they going to do to remedy the deficiency? It is not merely a problem of food; there is a major public health disaster featuring epidemic diseases such as kala-azar. What assessment have the Government made of the food and medical needs?
  278
  There is also a need for safe havens or demilitarised zones and the withdrawal of the fighting factions, especially from the Waat-Ayod-Kongor areas, or the famine triangle. In effect, that seems to have been agreed between the factions on 28 May following the intervention of the American ambassador. Has a safe haven been established? Have the forces been withdrawn? What pressure is being applied? If there is an agreement for a safe haven or demilitarised zone, it is something on which to build.
  We must maintain pressure on the Government of Sudan. It is clear that poverty is increasing and that the ordinary Sudanese are facing ever-greater difficulties. The Nigerians have been hosting peace talks in Abuja, and we must be grateful to them for doing that. There is no sign, however, that progress is being made and it is doubtful whether John Garang, the leader of the SPLA, has credibility as the sole representative of the splintered south. There is a grave suspicion that the Khartoum Government are stalling and that the insistence on Sharia is the main obstacle to progress.
  Other talks being held in Nairobi between the Government of Sudan and the SPLA united faction seem more optimistic. In Nairobi it has been reported that the Sudan Government have conceded the right of the southern Sudanese to self-determination through a referendum, although it is complicated by northern politicians who still regard the war as a fight against the Government in Sudan for the whole of Sudan and who are not interested in peace or the southern issue.
  What information do the Government have on the progress of the Nairobi talks? The British ambassador in Khartoum recently visited the south. What information and views did he bring back? Surely the time has now come for the United Nations and the international community to put pressure on all parties in the dispute. Should not the British Government take up the plight of the Sudanese people at the Security Council to try to find a satisfactory outcome?
  All sides seem to agree that Sudan cannot be a unitary state. Whether it becomes a federation, a confederation or two separate states is for the people of Sudan to decide. We must press for genuine steps to be made towards democracy. It is good that in Nairobi there seems to have been some agreement, or movement, on the need for a referendum. Neither the northern Government nor the factions in the south are elected. There is a complete absence of democratisation in Sudan. Will the Government press for a referendum at least in the southern states, if not in the whole of Sudan?
  I have raised this issue for debate because of the concern of many hon. Members and of the many people outside, especially the groups that support the aid organisations in this country. I look foward very much to the Government's reply.
  10.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for giving the House the timely opportunity to discuss the Sudan. I am sure that the House will be grateful, as I am, for his first-hand account of the situation there, following his recent visit accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). I am grateful for his

  279
  tribute to the work of Her Majesty's ambassador in the Sudan and his staff, who, like those elsewhere in the diplomatic service, fulfil their tasks with dedication and considerable courage.
  I found myself in broad agreement with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the situation and of the causes of the disastrous condition in which the Sudan finds itself. The hon. Member paints a grim picture, and it is all too clear from the many sources available to us that it is an accurate one.
  The root cause of the humanitarian crisis is the civil war which has wracked the country for so long. There will be no lasting solution to the problems in the south unless there is a peace settlement. It is crucial that all sides in the conflict—the Sudanese Government and the rival factions in the south—seize the opportunity afforded by the peace talks under way in Abuja. There can be no military solution. We whole-heartedly support the efforts of the Nigerian Government, who are chairing these talks. The Governments of Uganda and Kenya also continue to play a helpful and constructive role.
  It is right that the regional powers should be addressing the problem. But it is also our duty and that of our European partners to give every support to the process. This we have pledged to the Nigerian Government. We have also continued to insist in discussion with the parties—the regime in Khartoum and the rival factions of the south—that they seize the opportunity which now exists. We have put this point strongly to Sudanese Ministers. The international community will not understand if any of the parties fails to make the maximum effort. The SPLA leader, John Garang, received that message when he called in at the Foreign Office last month. The British ambassador who, as the hon. Gentleman said, visited southern Sudan two weeks ago, made the same point clearly to rival southern factions. As I speak, the Danish Minister for Development Co-operation is, as the hon. Gentleman also said, leading a troika delegation—on which we are represented by the permanent secretary at the Overseas Development Administration—on a visit to southern Sudan and Khartoum to underline the message.
  The Troika will also—this will be a primary objective—underline the seriousness with which the Community and its member states view the humanitarian crisis. It will underline the massive popular concern throughout the western world for the plight of the Sudanese people. There will be a strong message to the Sudanese Government and to the southern leaders that they must ensure that relief aid reaches all those in need throughout the country. Too often in the past the Government or the southern factions have obstructed relief. It is their duty to facilitate and to provide all necessary support and protection for the non-governmental organisations that distribute it. I have to say that in recent months it has been the fighting between factions in the south rather than action by the Sudanese forces that has obstructed our distribution.
  The hon. Member referred to the UN relief operation in south Sudan. That is known as Operation Lifeline Sudan—OLS—and it covers a large area of over 100,000 sq. miles of scattered settlements and towns. Much of the area is swampy during the wet season, making some areas inaccessible by road or airlift. Since the beginning of this year, OLS has had agreement from all parties to the
  280
  conflict to reactivate the relief network to more than 30 locations by air, river, road and rail. That is a complex operation requiring careful assessments to determine the needs and priorities of each area and then to establish the right delivery and distribution systems. The operaton has been disrupted by continuing hostilities, largely by the SPLA factions, which has brought further misery to the civilian population, and destroyed some relief facilities.
  The United Nations agencies of the OLS and the international NGOs—non-governmental organisations—have shown courage and tenacity in maintaining relief services, but much remains to be done to relieve the suffering in the most severely affected areas. We await a full report of the visit of the EC troika Development Ministers. But they have already reported that the OLS has done a great deal to alleviate the suffering of more than 600,000 people at risk from shortages of food, medicines and other basic necessities. Those people will need more help to piece together their disrupted lives. Closer co-operation between all those involved and a willingness to give priority to humanitarian aid are essential next steps. The troika is continuing its report on how this can now be achieved. We have provided nearly £23 million since OLS was established in 1989, and we shall now consider ways in which we can continue to help those in need.
  Mr. Worthington: I realise that the Minister cannot directly criticise UN operations. However, there have been some very savage criticisms in the press, particularly in The Independent, about the competence of the UN operation in Kenya serving southern Sudan. Will the Minister undertake to look into those criticisms and the references to four co-ordinators for seven or eight planes and to the fact that the UN cuts its activities down when the NGOs are willing to carry on? Those criticisms applied in Somalia where international NGOs were willing to continue, but the UN services backed off from Somalia. Those criticisms must be answered.
  Mr. Goodlad: I undertake to examine the criticisms that have been made. However, I do not wish to comment this evening on whether they are valid. I will leave it at that for the moment.
  I should like to take a moment here to pay a tribute, which I am sure will be supported by the hon. Gentleman, to the British relief workers in the Sudan. The account we received from the British ambassador on his visit to the south this month vividly describes the devotion and courage of hundreds of volunteers, many of them young—including many girls—working for relief agencies such as Save the Children, Oxfam, Care, Concern, Goal and others. They live in conditions of appalling deprivation and, in many cases, considerable danger. Their efforts are essential to the delivery of relief. They have saved the lives of countless Sudanese. Their selflessness is magnificent and humbling to witness.
  Her Majesty's Government have committed about £65 million for humanitarian assistance since November 1990 including our share of EC aid. All of that is channelled through the United Nations or non-governmental organisations. We were the second largest donor of bilateral food aid last year. We attached no political strings to that. The priority is to save life and meet basic needs. In addition, we gave our full support to the appointment by the United Nations Secretary-General last

  281
  month of the Italian diplomat, Mr. Traxler, as senior co-ordinator for the Sudan. He could have an important role in co-ordinating international humanitarian assistance. It is important, as we have made very clear to them, that the Sudanese Government stop procrastinating on this appointment. They should welcome it and they should receive Mr. Traxler for discussions in Khartoum as soon as possible.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to human rights. The Sudanese Government like to claim that their appalling reputation on human rights is the result of some form of international propaganda conspiracy against them; and that we play a leading role in a campaign of falsification. Of course that is not the case. There is overwhelming evidence, as the hon. Gentleman said, from many sources of systematic abuse of human rights throughout Sudan, of the regime's lack of respect for fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, of brutal interrogation and of enforced movement of population, to which I will refer in a moment. These abuses occur not only in the south. There are persistent and ugly stories of persecution of minorities in the Nuban hills. Obviously, I cannot give the House details of that because the Sudanese Government do not allow sufficient access to the area.
  The hon. Gentleman also quite rightly drew attention to the fact that it is not only in the south that the people of the Sudan are enduring misery. Many Sudanese, rendered destitute by civil war and drought, have sought sanctuary around the cities of Khartoum and Kosti ekeing out a meagre living where they can. The visible evidence of large-scale deprivation around the capital has prompted the Government to pursue a policy of forcible relocation of more than 700,000 displaced people to more remote sites, without basic facilities or reasonable access to employment. The Government have also restricted the access of those people to humanitarian assistance.
  We and other aid donors have called on the Government of Sudan to halt those inhumane policies. We have sought to replace them with planned, voluntary resettlement to properly prepared sites and pressed for increased access by international NGOs to provide humanitarian assistance where it is needed. We have also provided practical support with grants of about £1·5 million to British NGOs to support their relief programmes.
  282
  The settlements are still being bulldozed, however, and families uprooted. The EC troika Ministers are visiting one of the sites today to see conditions for themselves and to renew efforts to secure improved conditions for displaced people throughout Sudan.
  That the evidence against the Sudanese Government's overall record is widespread and conclusive is reflected in the remarkable vote in the United Nations General Assembly in December, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, when a resolution highly critical of the Sudanese record was adopted by 104 votes to eight. We co-sponsored that resolution and worked hard to secure its adoption. We also co-sponsored a resolution earlier this year in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which secured the appointment of a rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation in Sudan on a public basis. That is an important step. We shall continue to do everything we can to keep the spotlight of the world on Sudan in the hope of bringing about change. There have been signs that the regime does react to international pressure. There have been promises to improve co-operation on the distribution of aid. In recent weeks, the regime has also declared a ceasefire in the south. Those signs are, obviously, to be welcomed.
  Affection is felt in the House and in the country, traditionally, for the people of the Sudan. Our shared destiny goes back a long way. The colonial legacy comprised mutual respect, rather than bitterness. That makes the turmoil and the misery experienced in the Sudan all the harder for us to contemplate. We will continue to do all that we can to help. I wish that I could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I was wholly confident that we could expect a sustained improvement in the attitude of the Sudanese Government and the warring factions to the vital tasks of peacemaking, rebuilding the shattered infrastructure and protecting the human rights of all Sudanese people.
  I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his service to the House in bringing the issue before it. I assure him that we will continue to press for those vital tasks to he undertaken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judges aged 70 years or over are sitting on the circuit bench(a) full-time and (b) part-time; and how many of these are recorders or assistant recorders.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As at 1 June 1993, there were 16 full-time circuit judges aged 70 or over. In addition there were 29 deputy circuit judges and 12 recorders aged 70 or over, who may sit part time. There were no assistant recorders aged 70 or over.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Since November 1992 the Lord Chancellor's Department has commenced market tests in eight areas: internal audit; pay services; Public Trust Office taxes division; Public Trust Office typing services; Statutory Publications Office; printing and forms supply; IT services; and court building and estates management. To date, seven separate market tests have been completed in the court building and estates management area, which all resulted in the services being contracted out. These services were formerly provided by the Property Services Agency. Save for internal audit, the market tests in the remaining areas are still proceeding and no decisions have been taken. In the case of internal audit an in-house provision has been maintained.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Redundant Farm Buildings
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what grant aid is available for the purpose of restoring redundant farm houses and associated buildings in order that they may once again form the basis of an active farming unit.

  Mr. Brooke
  If the hon. Member's focus is a Scottish one, I suggest that he writes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stale for Scotland. In England, since 1989, English Heritage has been contributing funds towards the barns and walls conservation scheme, in the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale conservation area of the Yorkshire Dales national park—a joint initiative also involving the national park, Richmondshire district council, the 78
  Countryside Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Grants of up to 80 per cent. are available to farmers and landowners to enable them to bring the buildings back into working condition, using traditional materials and repair techniques. Nationally, English Heritage is able to give grants for the repair of historic buildings of outstanding historical or architectural interest—usually those listed grade I or grade II—or those situated in designated conservation areas.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for the national lottery to contain an instant lottery element.

  Mr. Sproat
  The types and mix of games for the national lottery will be for the operator to propose. The licensing of individual games under clause 6 of the National Lottery etc. Bill will be the responsibility of the director-general.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Northern Ireland Court of Appeal
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland's progress in considering the cases referred to him by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in its judgment in the case of Rv. Latimer and others delivered on 29 July 1992.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland considered the judgment of the Court of Appeal and all other then available facts and information. On 5 August 1992, 10 February 1993 and 27 April 1993 the director issued interim directions to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary requesting that further reports, information and witness statements be obtained. The majority of these further reports, information and witness statements have been obtained by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and submitted to the director. A small number of witness statements remain outstanding.

  When all the matters requested in these interim directions have been received and considered, a decision as to whether criminal proceedings will be instituted will be taken. It is expected that this decision will be taken in the near future. I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 11 November 1992 at columns 835–36 and to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 27 January 1993 at column 709.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number and names of individuals and organisations who responded to the public consultation exercise on wheel clamping.

  Mr. Maclean
  Approximately 2,400 copies of the consultation paper were distributed and 184 responses have been received. Respondents were not asked to agree
  79
  to the publication of their names when their comments were invited and it would not be appropriate now to identify them. However, the table shows the categories to which these respondents belong.

  Number

  Landowners:

  hospitals

  7

  estates

  10

  national organisations

  9

  local organisations

  22

  individuals

  8

  Wheelclamping companies

  11

  Motorists

  13

  MPs and Members of the House of Lords

  8

  Local authorities

  46

  Police

  23

  Other bodies (including other Government departments and public and private organisations representing a wide variety of interests)

  27

  In addition, since 1 April 1992, we have received 199 letters forwarded by MPs and Members of the House of Lords, and 107 letters sent direct to the Home Office or other Government Departments commenting on this issue.

  Police Batons
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will agree to a pilot project on the use of the expandable side-handled baton being monitored by(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers, (b) the Police Federation, (c) the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and (d) an independent research and assessment team.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 21 June at column 2.

  Rabies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce tougher sentences for offenders contravening anti-rabies laws; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The maximum penalty for offences under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 is an unlimited fine and/or 12 months' imprisonment. We have no plans to increase it.

  Wickham Laboratories
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the investigations into allegations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection in respect of Wickham laboratories.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate and the Medicines Control Agency have investigated allegations made by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) into procedures and practices at Wickham laboratories.

  The investigation did not find substantiated some of the principal allegations against Wickham, but it did disclose poor local management, resulting in lax attitudes and practices among certain staff. These included a readiness
  80
  to falsify test and environmental data on occasions. There was also one case of unnecessary animal use. Some aspects of the technical training were unsatisfactory: initial training was poorly structured and unrecorded and left some basic gaps in coverage. The system also lacked formal assessment of competence before unsupervised tasks were allocated to new employees.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has concluded that direct responsibility for the failures detected by the investigation lies with the individual who was line manager for the named day-to-day care person at the time to which the BUAV allegations relate, and who was himself named day-to-day care person at the time of the Home Office investigation. My right hon. and learned Friend has directed that he be replaced as named day-to-day care person and deputy project licence holder, and that his personal licence be revoked. In addition, the individual who was named day-to-day care person at the time of the BUAV investigation has been warned that particular attention will be paid to her current skills and knowledge if in future she should apply for a personal licence. A number of other members of Wickham staff have received letters of admonition, reminding them of the importance of a proper understanding of their responsibilities and obligations under the legislation.

  In addition to action in respect of individuals, my right hon. and learned Friend has directed:
  that Wickham agree with the inspectorate a formal training scheme for all animal unit staff, including full records of training given and an assessment of expertise for specific tasks being made from the beginning of each individual's employment;
  that Wickham's standard operating procedures relating to the care, husbandry and euthanasia of animals should be revised to the satisfaction of the inspectorate and to reflect best current practice.

  It has been made clear to Wickham that a serious view has been taken of the lapses which this investigation has revealed, and that Wickham's operation will be subjected to particularly close scrutiny in the future. The Animal Procedures Committee has been informed of the outcome of the investigation, and has endorsed the action taken.

  Other allegations made by the BUAV were not substantiated, and the inspectorate had reservations about some of the evidence presented in support of the allegations. In particular, the investigation did not find that there had been unauthorised reuse of animals, or that animal suffering had resulted from poor accommodation, or that problems had arisen from a potential conflict of interests among the senior management at Wickham. On the latter point, however, the Animal Procedures Committee has decided to look in general terms at the conflicts which may arise when the posts of certificate holder, project licence holder and named veterinary surgeon are not all held by separate individuals.

  The BUAV alleged that unnecessary animal testing took place. I am satisfied, however, that all the work carried out at Wickham was properly licensed udder the Act. The general issue of animal testing performed to satisfy the requirements of regulatory authorities is currently being examined by the Animal Procedures Committee, and I look forward to receiving its advice.

  Finally, I understand that the Medicines Control Agency's conclusion is that although there were operational and procedural deficiencies at Wickham, they do not call in question the validity of the particular tests, nor do they raise doubts about Wickham's continued

  81
  operation as a contract research establishment. A range of improvements has been insisted upon by the agency and it will he keeping the situation under close review.

  Prosecution Statements
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to give the defence the right to see prosecution statements in summary trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans at present to extend to defendants accused of summary offences the provisions of the Magistrates Courts (Advance Information) Rules 1985. The issue is, however, within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and we will consider carefully any recommendations it might make.

  Unit Fine System
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider establishing a restrospective scheme to compensate those individuals who have been disadvantaged by the unit fine system after it has been replaced.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims have been made to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the last three years; how many have been successful; how many have gone to appeal and then been accepted; and what have been the shortest, longest and average times each year to deal with cases that have gone to appeal.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information, provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), is summarised in the following tables.

  Table 1 Claims received and decisions made by CICB

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Claims received

  53,655

  50,820

  61,400

  Awards offered and accepted at first decision stage

  25,577

  32,135

  35,268

  Applications for appeal

  7,203

  8,123

  9,258

  Appeals heard

  3,897

  6,265

  8,731

  Successful appeals

  2,349

  3,055

  3,981

  Table 2 Time between application for appeal and hearing

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Up to 3 months

  1

  4

  3

  3 to 6 months

  3

  8

  13

  6 to 9 months

  6

  10

  15

  9 to 12 months

  18

  11

  14

  Over 12 months

  72

  67

  55

  100

  100

  100

  Note: The numbers relating to awards, applications for appeals and appeals heard in any one year do not necessarily relate to claims received in that year, or to each other.
  82

  Police Mergers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police authorities that have been considered for amalgamation(a) during his period of office as Home Secretary and (b) during the past 10 years; and which proposals did not proceed because of the current procedure for amalgamation (i) as the only or primary reason and (ii) as a contributory reason.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: No police authorities were considered for amalgamation during the term of office of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). At the time of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils, consideration was given to possible changes in the relevant police force areas. No changes were made because it was felt unlikely that reorganisation would improve effectiveness. The amalgamation procedure was not a factor in this decision.

  Complete records for the last 10 years are not available. However, the records that are available indicate that detailed consideration has not been given to the amalgamation of any other force areas during that time.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  World Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to enhance the output and reputation of the World Service.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In discussions with the World Service in March and April this year we reached broad agreement on plans for the next funding triennium (April 1994 to March 1997), and on priority areas for development, funded from savings elsewhere in the World Service. These plans, which remain subject to the outcome of the current public expenditure survey, take account of the need to respond to changes in the former Soviet Union, and include the introduction of two central Asian languages.

  Trade Representatives
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) diplomats and (b) trade representatives there are in each United Kingdom diplomatic post overseas.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The total number of United Kingdom diplomats (with the rank of second secretary and above) serving in United Kingdom diplomatic posts overseas is 1,263.

  The total number of trade representatives at these posts, including locally engaged staff, is 451.

  A breakdown of the figures by post is as follows:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic post overseas

  Country

  Post

  Number of diplomats

  Trade representatives1

  Albania

  Tirana

  1·0

  0

  Algeria

  Algiers

  7·0

  1

  Angola

  Luanda

  6·0

  2

  Antigua

  Antigua

  1·0

  0

  83

  Country

  Post

  Number of diplomats

  Trade representatives1

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires

  8·0

  3

  Australia

  Brisbane

  2·0

  2

  Australia

  Canberra

  11·0

  0

  Australia

  Melbourne

  3·0

  5

  Australia

  Perth

  2·0

  3

  Australia

  Sydney

  3·0

  3

  Austria

  Vienna

  10·0

  3

  Austria

  Vienna CFE

  5·0

  0

  Austria

  Vienna UKMIS

  4·0

  0

  Azerbaijan

  Baku

  2·0

  0

  British Virgin

  Tortola

  1·0

  0

  Isles

  Bahamas

  Nassau

  2·0

  1

  Bahrain

  Bahrain

  5·0

  0

  Bangladesh

  Dhaka

  11·0

  1

  Barbados

  Bridgetown

  5·0

  1

  Barbados

  DT Secretar

  2·0

  0

  Belarus

  Minsk

  1·0

  0

  Belgium

  Brussels

  11·0

  5

  Belgium

  Brussels JMO

  4·0

  0

  Belgium

  Brussels UKDL

  9·0

  0

  Belgium

  Brussels UKRP

  39·0

  1

  Belize

  Belmopan

  2·0

  0

  Bolivia

  La Paz

  2·0

  1

  Botswana

  Gaborone

  3·0

  1

  Brazil

  Brasilia

  8·0

  0

  Brazil

  Rio de Janeiro

  2·0

  3

  Brazil

  Sao Paulo

  3·0

  5

  Brunei

  Ban Sen Beg

  3·0

  0

  Bulgaria

  Sofia

  7·0

  0

  Burma

  Rangoon

  2·0

  1

  Cambodia

  Phnom Penh

  3·0

  0

  Cameroon

  Douala

  1·0

  2

  Cameroon

  Yaounde

  2·0

  0

  Canada

  Montreal

  3·0

  4

  Canada

  Ottawa

  8·0

  3

  Canada

  Toronto

  3·0

  6

  Canada

  Vancouver

  2·0

  2

  Chile

  Santiago

  8·0

  4

  China

  Peking

  17·0

  7

  China

  Shanghai

  2·0

  1

  Colombia

  Bogota

  5·0

  1

  Costa Rica

  San Jose

  2·0

  2

  Croatia

  Zagreb

  4·0

  1

  Croatia

  Zagreb ECMM

  1·0

  0

  Cuba

  Havana

  4·0

  0

  Cyprus

  Nicosia

  11·0

  3

  Czechoslovakia

  Prague

  11·0

  5

  Denmark

  Copenhagen

  10·0

  5

  Ecuador

  Quito

  3·0

  2

  Egypt

  Alexandria

  1·0

  0

  Egypt

  Cairo

  13·0

  4

  El Salvador

  San Salvador

  1·0

  1

  Estonia

  Tallinn

  1·0

  0

  Ethiopia

  Addis Ababa

  5·0

  1

  Falklands

  Stanley

  1·0

  0

  Fiji

  Suva

  2·0

  1

  Finland

  Helsinki

  8·0

  4

  France

  Bordeaux

  1·0

  1

  France

  Lille

  1·0

  1

  France

  Lyons

  1·0

  2

  France

  Marseilles

  1·0

  1

  France

  Paris

  33·0

  10

  France

  Paris OECD

  6·0

  0

  France

  Strasbourg

  2·0

  0

  Gambia

  Banjul

  2·0

  0

  Germany

  Berlin

  12·0

  4

  Germany

  Bonn

  25·0

  0

  Germany

  Dusseldorf

  7·0

  7

  Germany

  Frankfurt

  3·0

  3

  Germany

  Hamburg

  2·0

  2

  Germany

  Munich

  4·0

  3

  Germany

  Stuttgart

  1·0

  2

  Ghana

  Accra

  10·0

  2

  Gibraltar

  Gibraltar

  2·0

  0

  Greece

  Athens

  11·0

  4

  Grenada

  St. George's

  1·0

  0

  84

  Country

  Post

  Number of diplomats

  Trade representatives1

  Guatemala

  Guatemala City

  3·0

  1

  Guyana

  Georgetown

  2·0

  0

  Holy See

  Vatican City

  2·0

  0

  Honduras

  Tegucigalpa

  1·0

  0

  Hong Kong

  Hong Kong BTC

  11·0

  4

  Hong Kong

  Hong Kong CTU

  2·1

  3

  Hong Kong

  Hong Kong JLG

  3·0

  0

  Hungary

  Budapest

  9·0

  5

  Iceland

  Reykjavik

  2·0

  0

  India

  Bombay

  7·0

  5

  India

  Calcutta

  2·0

  2

  India

  Madras

  2·0

  3

  India

  New Delhi

  21·0

  5

  Indonesia

  Jakarta

  14·0

  5

  Iran

  Tehran

  8·0

  2

  Iraq

  Baghdad

  4·0

  0

  Ireland

  Dublin

  9·0

  3

  Israel

  Tel Aviv

  7·0

  3

  Italy

  Florence

  1·0

  1

  Italy

  Milan

  5·0

  8

  Italy

  Naples

  2·0

  1

  Italy

  Rome

  17·0

  3

  Ivory Coast

  Abidjan

  3·0

  2

  Jamaica

  Kingston

  5·0

  1

  Japan

  Osaka

  3·0

  5

  Japan

  Tokyo

  23·0

  14

  Jerusalem

  Jerusalem

  2·0

  0

  Jordan

  Amman

  7·0

  1

  Kazakhstan

  Alma Ata

  2·0

  0

  Kenya

  Nairobi

  16·0

  3

  Kiribati

  Tarawa

  1·0

  0

  Korea

  Seoul

  9·0

  9

  Kuwait

  Kuwait

  10·0

  4

  Latvia

  Riga

  2·0

  0

  Lebanon

  Beirut

  2·0

  1

  Lesotho

  Maseru

  3·0

  0

  Libya

  Tripoli

  1·0

  0

  Lithuania

  Vilnius

  2·0

  0

  Luxembourg

  Luxembourg

  2·0

  0

  Macedonia

  Skopje

  1·0

  0

  Madagascar

  Antananarivo

  2·0

  0

  Malawi

  Lilongwe

  5·0

  0

  Malaysia

  Kuala Lumpur

  9·0

  6

  Malta

  Valletta

  4·0

  1

  Mauritius

  Port Louis

  2·0

  0

  Mexico

  Mexico City

  10·0

  5

  Mongolia

  Ulaanbaatar

  2·0

  0

  Montserrat

  Plymouth

  1·0

  0

  Morocco

  Casablanca

  2·0

  2

  Morocco

  Rabat

  4·0

  0

  Mozambique

  Maputo

  6·0

  0

  Namibia

  Windhoek

  3·0

  0

  Nepal

  Kathmandu

  5·0

  0

  Netherlands

  Amsterdam

  2·0

  0

  Netherlands

  The Hague

  13·0

  5

  New Zealand

  Auckland

  2·0

  3

  New Zealand

  Wellington

  8·0

  2

  Nicaragua

  Managua

  1·0

  0

  Nigeria

  Abuja

  4·0

  2

  Nigeria

  Kaduna

  2·0

  2

  Nigeria

  Lagos

  17·0

  5

  Norway

  Oslo

  10·0

  3

  Oman

  Muscat

  6·0

  3

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  21·0

  3

  Pakistan

  Karachi

  4·0

  3

  Panama

  Panama City

  1·0

  1

  Papua New

  Port Moresby

  2·0

  0

  Guinea

  Paraguay

  Asuncion

  2·0

  1

  Peru

  Lima

  4·0

  1

  Philippines

  Manila

  7·0

  3

  Poland

  Warsaw

  12·0

  3

  Portugal

  Lisbon

  11·0

  5

  Portugal

  Oporto

  1·0

  1

  Qatar

  Doha

  3·0

  3

  Romania

  Bucharest

  8·0

  2

  Russia

  Moscow

  26·0

  6

  85

  Country

  Post

  Number of diplomats

  Trade representatives1

  Russia

  St. Petersburg

  3·0

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  Al Khobar

  2·0

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  Jedda

  4·0

  3

  Saudi Arabia

  Riyadh

  13·0

  8

  Senegal

  Dakar

  2·0

  0

  Seychelles

  Victoria

  2·0

  0

  Sierra Leone

  Freetown

  2·0

  0

  Singapore

  Singapore

  8·0

  5

  Slovakia

  Bratislava

  2·0

  0

  Slovenia

  Ljubljana

  1·0

  0

  Solomon Islands

  Honiara

  2·0

  0

  South Africa

  Cape Town

  4·0

  2

  South Africa

  Durban

  1·0

  1

  South Africa

  Johannesburg

  8·0

  6

  South Africa

  Pretoria

  11·0

  0

  Spain

  Barcelona

  2·0

  3

  Spain

  Bilbao

  1·0

  3

  Spain

  Madrid

  19·0

  8

  Spain

  Malaga

  1·0

  0

  Spain

  Palma

  1·0

  0

  Sri Lanka

  Colombo

  7·0

  2

  St. Lucia

  Castries

  1·0

  0

  St. Vincent

  Kingstown

  1·0

  0

  Sudan

  Khartoum

  4·0

  1

  Swaziland

  Mbabane

  2·0

  0

  Sweden

  Stockholm

  10·0

  5

  Switzerland

  Berne

  6·0

  1

  Switzerland

  Geneva CG

  7·0

  1

  Switzerland

  Geneva UKDEL

  3·0

  0

  Switzerland

  Geneva UKMIS

  10·0

  0

  Switzerland

  Zurich

  2·0

  6

  Syria

  Damascus

  6·0

  1

  Taiwan

  Taipei Attc

  3·0

  4

  Tanzania

  Dar Es Salaam

  7·0

  0

  Thailand

  Bangkok

  13·0

  8

  Tonga

  Nuku'alofa

  1·0

  0

  Trinidad

  Port of Spain

  3·0

  2

  Tunisia

  Tunis

  5·0

  0

  Turkey

  Ankara

  10·0

  3

  Turkey

  Istanbul

  5·0

  5

  Turks/Caicos

  Grand Turk

  1·0

  0

  U. A. Emirates

  Abu Dhabi

  7·0

  3

  U. A. Emirates

  Dubai

  5·0

  3

  Uganda

  Kampala

  7·0

  0

  Ukraine

  Kiev

  6·0

  0

  Country

  GDP growth 1988–92

  British exports 1992 £ million

  Export league position 1992

  Percentage of British exports 1992

  Percentage change British trade representation 1988–92

  Thailand

  10·17

  476

  34

  0·40

  +79·0

  Maldives

  9·51

  4

  160

  0·00

  1

  Malaysia

  9·09

  635

  28

  0·60

  -3·2

  Belize

  8·80

  11

  127

  0·01

  2

  Singapore

  8·06

  1,145

  19

  1·10

  -9·9

  South Korea

  7·96

  654

  27

  0·60

  +35·2

  China

  7·90

  429

  36

  0·40

  +32·5

  United Arab Emirates

  7·20

  926

  23

  0·90

  2

  Chile

  7·14

  125

  57

  0·10

  -1·6

  Botswana

  6·94

  20

  105

  0·02

  -16·0

  Source: IMF.

  1 No local representation.

  2 No change.

  Thailand
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of development of the proposed construction of the new transmitter in Thailand for the BBC World Service; and when the construction will be completed.
  86

  Country

  Post

  Number of diplomats

  Trade representatives1

  Uruguay

  Montevideo

  3·0

  1

  USA

  Atlanta

  2·0

  3

  USA

  Boston

  2·0

  2

  USA

  Chicago

  5·0

  9

  USA

  Cleveland

  1·0

  1

  USA

  Dallas

  1·0

  2

  USA

  Houston

  2·0

  3

  USA

  Los Angeles

  6·0

  4

  USA

  Miami

  1·0

  2

  USA

  New York BTIO

  9·0

  11

  USA

  New York UKMIS

  17·0

  0

  USA

  New York BIS

  3·0

  0

  USA

  New York CG

  4·0

  0

  USA

  New York JMO

  2·0

  0

  USA

  San Francisco

  2·0

  2

  USA

  Seattle

  1·0

  1

  USA

  Washington

  38·0

  3

  Uzbekistan

  Tashkent

  2·0

  0

  Vanuatu

  Vila

  2·0

  0

  Venezuela

  Caracas

  7·0

  4

  Vietnam

  Hanoi

  4·0

  0

  Vietnam

  Ho Chi Minh

  1·0

  1

  Yemen

  Sana'a

  5·0

  1

  Yugoslavia

  Belgrade

  7·0

  3

  Yugoslavia

  Kosovo

  1·0

  0

  Zaire

  Kinshasa

  2·0

  0

  Zambia

  Lusaka

  8·0

  2

  Zimbabwe

  Harare

  10·0

  2

  TOTALS

  1,263·1

  451

  1 Including senior locally engaged staff.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which 10 countries have had the greatest growth of GDP over the last five years; and what has been the percentage change of the number of United Kingdom trade representatives in the diplomatic posts in each of these countries over that period.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is contained in the table.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have reached agreement in principle with the Thai authorities for the construction of a BBC World Service relay station in Thailand. Detailed site survey work, which is required before final project approval can be given, is about to begin. The target date for completion of the project is 1996.
  87

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations has had with his American, Russian, French and Chinese counterparts in New York following the proposal by the United States ambassador that Germany and Japan be allocated permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council; and what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the United States Administration over the proposal.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have regular discussions with the Americans and other permanent members of the Security Council on a range of United Nations issues, including Security Council reform. The Americans have aired their views, which are not new, in the context of the Secretary-General's request for member states to submit views on Security Council reform by the end of June. Many states, including the United Kingdom, will be sending replies and we will play a full part in the debate.

  UN Peace-keeping Operations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the United Kingdom's contribution was to the United Nation's peace-keeping operations for each of the last 10 years; and what form each contribution took.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom assessed contributions to the United Nations for peacekeeping operations for calendar years 1983 to 1992 inclusive are shown in table A.

  We also contribute contingents to a number of operations.

  Table B shows average manpower totals for FY89/90 onwards and the costs. Figures are not available for personnel involved in peacekeeping operations before 1989.

  Table A

  PKO

  Total United Nations costs

  United Kingdom assessment

  $

  $

  1983

  UNEF/UNDOF

  51,424,618

  2,903,400

  UNIFIL

  204,687,820

  11,562,616

  TOTALS

  256,112,438

  14,466,016

  1984

  UNEF/UNDOF

  35,008,804

  1,980,362

  UNIFIL

  139,515,477

  7,889,724

  TOTALS

  174,524,281

  9,870,086

  1985

  17,668,157

  999,159

  UNEF/UNDOF UNIFIL

  69,743,881

  3,943,611

  TOTALS

  87,412,038

  4,942,770

  Average manpower totals deployed on United Nations peacekeeping operations

  Operation

  Financial Year 1989–90

  Financial Year 1990–91

  Financial Year 1991–92

  Financial Year 1992–93

  Financial Year 1993–94

  UNFICYP (Cyprus)

  763

  778

  773

  786

  592

  UNTAG (Namibia)

  170

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UNIKOM (Iraq-Kuwait)

  —

  —

  20

  15

  15

  MINURSO (Western Sahara)

  —

  —

  15

  15

  15

  88

  PKO

  Total United Nations costs

  United Kingdom assessment

  $

  $

  1986

  UNEF/UNDOF

  36,075,718

  2,128,643

  UNIFIL

  165,495,803

  9,732,229

  TOTALS

  201,571,521

  11,860,872

  1987

  UNEF/UNDOF

  34,637,584

  2,052,892

  UNIFIL

  160,242,048

  9,499,379

  TOTALS

  194,879,632

  11,552,271

  1988

  UNEF/UNDOF

  17,448,712

  1,034,131

  UNIFIL

  128,287,933

  7,613,781

  UNIIMOG

  35,214,525

  2,085,184

  TOTALS

  180,951,170

  10,733,096

  1989

  UNEF/UNDOF

  35,758,957

  2,125,368

  UNIFIL

  152,928,144

  9,100,088

  UNIIMOG

  113,464,671

  6,765,227

  UNAVEM

  9,033,059

  535,871

  UNTAG

  409,555,646

  24,313,435

  TOTALS

  720,740,477

  42,839,989

  1990

  UNEF/UNDOF

  39,705,206

  2,350,921

  UNIFIL

  142,383,974

  8,450,380

  UNIIMOG

  24,245,517

  1,431,539

  UNAVEM

  5,680,851

  335,005

  ONUCA

  56,908,988

  3,375,840

  TOTALS

  268,924,536

  15,943,685

  1991

  UNEF/UNDOF

  37,865,581

  2,222,717

  UNIFIL

  151,520,291

  8,895,787

  UNAVEM

  52,133,556

  3,070,269

  ONUCA

  25,932,122

  1,514,512

  UNIKOM

  60,296,777

  3,542,240

  MINURSO

  140,911,223

  8,265,226

  ONUSAL

  13,242,993

  767,485

  TOTALS

  481,902,543

  28,278,236

  1992

  UNEF/UNDOF

  35,202,425

  2,120,982

  UNIFIL

  144,962,169

  8,792,954

  UNAVEM

  56,604,651

  3,420,182

  ONUCA

  12,120,754

  724,660

  UNIKOM

  60,869,647

  3,651,915

  ONUSAL

  36,260,035

  2,175,387

  UNAMIC

  33,294,358

  2,010,720

  UNTAC

  801,823,206

  48,813,331

  UNPROFOR

  250,455,801

  15,254,166

  UNOSOM

  108,441,298

  6,584,483

  TOTALS

  1,540,034,344

  93,548,780

  Note: Figures taken from United Nations status of Contribution Reports.
  89

  Operation

  Financial Year 1989–90

  Financial Year 1990–91

  Financial Year 1991–92

  Financial Year 1992–93

  Financial Year 1993–94

  UNTAC (Cambodia)

  —

  —

  1 2123

  123

  123

  UNPROFOR (Yugoslavia) [Including Hanwoood, Cheshire and Grapple]

  —

  —

  —

  1 32,489

  2,642

  Total for year

  933

  778

  931

  3,428

  3,387

  1 Manpower level reduced following the recent 25 per cent, reduction in the UNFICYP force.

  2 Original deployment consisted of three military observers, a 13 man mine clearance team and two military liaison officers at the United Nations. Increased in mid-March to its current strength.

  3 Between 15 July—23 October average manpower in-theatre was 331 but rose to 2,489 following the implementation of Operation Grapple.

  Cost of United Kingdom participation

  (£ million)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  UNFICYP (Cyprus)

  23·77

  24·84

  26·34

  29·93

  33·78

  UNPROFOR (Croatia/Bosnia)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UNTAG (Namibia)

  —

  1·25

  —

  —

  —

  MINURSO (Western Sahara)

  —

  —

  —

  0·06

  0·61

  UNIKOM (Iraq/Kuwait)

  —

  —

  —

  0·03

  0·82

  UNTASC/UNAMIC (Cambodia)

  —

  —

  —

  0·01

  0·83

  Gross cost

  23·77

  26·09

  26·34

  30·03

  100·35

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution has been made by the United Kingdom towards the training of persons involved in peacekeeping by the United Nations in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The preparation and training of United Kingdom personnel participating in United Nations peacekeeping operations is undertaken by the United Kingdom armed forces before each deployment. Over the last 10 years the United Kingdom has contributed personnel to the following peacekeeping operations:

  MINURSO—United Nations Mission for the Referendum in the Western Sahara

  UNFICYP—United Nations Peackeeping Force in Cyprus

  UNIKO—United Nations Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission

  UNTAC—United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia

  UNPROFOR—United Nations Protection Force (in the former Yugoslavia)

  UNTAG—United Nations Transitional Assistance Group (Namibia)

  Narcotics
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total of the United Kingdom's funding for overseas programmes to combat the production and trade in narcotics in each of the last five years, with each programme shown separately.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The figures for Departments' overseas programmes to combat the production and trade in narcotics for the last five years are as follows:

  Latest inflation1

  Budget balance2

  General government debt3

  Long-term bond yield4

  Belgium

  2·7

  -6·9

  132·2

  7·2

  Denmark

  1·1

  -2·4

  74·0

  7·2

  France

  2·0

  -3·9

  50·1

  6·9

  90

  Foreign and Common wealth Office

  Overseas Development Administration

  Home Office

  £

  £

  £

  1988–89

  664,572

  n/a

  1,985,000

  1989–90

  4,267,927

  7,941,400

  2,267,000

  1990–91

  4,453,930

  3,733,585

  3,352,000

  1991–92

  3,203,266

  3,496,275

  2,093,000

  1992–93

  2,802,303

  3,627,631

  4,428,000

  n/a = not available.

  ODA figures relate to projects aimed both directly and indirectly at reducing drug production and trafficking in developing countries.

  In addition, £94,000 from the seized asset fund was allocated to drugs-related assistance to overseas governments in 1992–93.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Economic Statistics
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current(a) inflation rate, (b) budget surplus or deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product, (c) public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product and (d) long-term interest rate, of each of the EC member states.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  91

  Latest inflation1

  Budget balance2

  General government debt3

  Long-term bond yield4

  Germany5

  4·0

  -2·8

  45·9

  6·8

  Greece

  16·2

  -13·8

  105·6

  n/a

  Ireland

  1·9

  -2·4

  99·0

  7·6

  Italy

  4·0

  -9·5

  106·8

  10·5

  Luxembourg

  3·8

  -1·6

  6·8

  7·2

  Netherlands

  2·3

  -3·3

  79·8

  6·6

  Portugal

  5·7

  -5·4

  66·2

  12·2.

  Spain

  4·6

  -4·5

  47·4

  10·7

  United Kingdom

  1·3

  -6·2

  45·9

  8·0

  1 Latest percentage change in consumer prices on year ago.

  2 1992 general government financial balance (as a percentage of GDP), European Commission.

  3 1992 gross debt of general government (as a percentage of GDP), estimates taken from European Economy (Annual Economic Report for 1993).

  4 Yield on fixed interest government securities on 15 June 1993.

  5 Inflation and government debt figures are for western Germany.

  Source: OECD and Eurostat

  Industrial Research and Development
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to offer tax incentives to encourage companies in the United Kingdom to invest in industrial research and development.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's recent White Paper on science and technology reiterated our view that we do not consider there to be a case for further general tax incentives for spending on research and development.

  Profit Distribution
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information his Departments has on the percentage of company profits distributed as dividends in each year since 1978 for each G7 country excluding Canada and for Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands.

  Income tax liability of decile groups of taxpayers at current prices

  (£ million)

  Year

  Top 10 per cent.

  10–20

  20–30

  30–40

  40–50

  50–60

  60–70

  70–80

  80–90

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  Total tax liability

  Number in each decile (thousands)

  Total taxpayers1 (thousands)

  1979–80

  7,900

  3,600

  2,800

  2,300

  1,900

  1,600

  1,200

  900

  500

  200

  22,900

  2,160

  21,600

  1980–81

  9,300

  4,200

  3,300

  2,700

  2,200

  1,800

  1,500

  1,100

  600

  200

  26,900

  2,100

  21,000

  1981–82

  10,800

  4,700

  3,700

  3,000

  2,500

  2,100

  1,600

  1,200

  700

  200

  30,500

  2,080

  20,800

  1982–83

  11,700

  5,000

  3,900

  3,200

  2,700

  2,200

  1,700

  1,200

  700

  200

  32,600

  2,080

  20,800

  1983–84

  12,100

  5,300

  4,000

  3,300

  2,700

  2,200

  1,700

  1,200

  700

  200

  33,400

  2,040

  20,400

  1984–85

  13,200

  5,600

  4,200

  3,400

  2,700

  2,200

  1,700

  1,200

  700

  200

  35,300

  2,020

  20,200

  1985–86

  14,800

  5,900

  4,500

  3,700

  3,000

  2,400

  1,900

  1,400

  900

  300

  38,800

  2,020

  20,200

  1986–87

  16,900

  6,500

  4,900

  4,000

  3,200

  2,600

  2,000

  1,500

  900

  400

  42,800

  2,040

  20,400

  1987–88

  18,400

  6,800

  5,100

  4,100

  3,400

  2,700

  2,000

  1,500

  900

  300

  45,300

  2,080

  20,800

  1988–89

  19,400

  6,900

  5,200

  4,100

  3,400

  2,700

  2,100

  1,500

  900

  300

  46,500

  2,130

  21,300

  1989–90

  22,600

  8,300

  5,900

  4,600

  3,700

  2,900

  2,300

  1,700

  1,100

  400

  53,400

  2,150

  21,500

  1990–91

  25,400

  9,400

  6,900

  5,400

  4,200

  3,400

  2,600

  1,800

  1,000

  300

  60,400

  2,630

  26,300

  1991–92

  26,200

  9,800

  7,100

  5,600

  4,400

  3,500

  2,600

  1,800

  1,000

  300

  62,400

  2,550

  25,500

  1992–93

  25,800

  9,500

  6,900

  5,300

  4,200

  3,200

  2,400

  1,600

  800

  200

  59,900

  2,480

  24,800

  1 Tax units prior to 1990–91.

  Income tax liability of decile groups of taxpayers at 1979–80 prices

  (£ million)

  Year

  Top 10 per cent.

  10–20

  20–30

  30–40

  40–50

  50–60

  60–70

  70–80

  80–90

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  Total tax liability

  Number in each decile (thousands)

  Total taxpayers1 (thousands)

  1979–80

  7,900

  3,600

  2,800

  2,300

  1,900

  1,600

  1,200

  900

  500

  200

  22,900

  2,160

  21,600

  1980–81

  8,000

  3,600

  2,800

  2,300

  1,900

  1,500

  1,300

  900

  500

  200

  26,900

  2,100

  21,000

  1981–82

  8,300

  3,600

  2,900

  2,300

  1,900

  1,600

  1,200

  900

  500

  200

  30,500

  2,080

  20,800

  92
  Mr. Nelson
  The available information is provided in the OECD's "National Accounts Volume II", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total tax liability of each decile of taxpayers in each year since 1979–80 in(a) current prices and (b) 1979–80 prices; and how many taxpayers were in each decile in each year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates are given in the tables. For years up to and including 1989–90 married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards husbands and wives are counted separately. The figures in the table have been rounded to the nearest £100 million and may differ slightly from the totals shown.
  93

  Year

  Top 10 per cent.

  10–20

  20–30

  30–40

  40–50

  50–60

  60–70

  70–80

  80–90

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  Total tax liability

  Number in each decile (thousands)

  Total taxpayers1 (thousands)

  1982–83

  8,400

  3,600

  2,800

  2,300

  1,900

  1,600

  1,200

  900

  500

  100

  32,600

  2,080

  20,800

  1983–84

  8,300

  3,700

  2,800

  2,300

  1,900

  1,500

  1,200

  800

  500

  100

  33,400

  2,040

  20,400

  1984–85

  8,600

  3,700

  2,800

  2,200

  1,800

  1,400

  1,100

  800

  500

  100

  35,300

  2,020

  20,200

  1985–86

  9,100

  3,600

  2,800

  2,300

  1,900

  1,500

  1,200

  900

  600

  200

  38,800

  2,020

  20,200

  1986–87

  10,100

  3,900

  2,900

  2,400

  1,900

  1,600

  1,200

  900

  500

  200

  42,800

  2,040

  20,400

  1987–88

  10,600

  3,900

  2,900

  2,400

  2,000

  1,600

  1,200

  900

  500

  200

  45,300

  2,080

  20,800

  1988–89

  10,600

  3,800

  2,800

  2,200

  1,800

  1,500

  1,100

  800

  500

  200

  46,500

  2,130

  21,300

  1989–90

  11,400

  4,200

  2,900

  2,300

  1,900

  1,500

  1,200

  800

  600

  200

  53,400

  2,150

  21,500

  1990–91

  11,700

  4,300

  3,200

  2,500

  1,900

  1,600

  1,200

  800

  500

  100

  60,400

  2,630

  26,300

  1991–92

  11,500

  4,300

  3,100

  2,500

  1,900

  1,500

  1,100

  800

  400

  100

  62,400

  2,550

  25,500

  1992–93

  11,000

  4,000

  2,900

  2,300

  1,800

  1,400

  1,000

  700

  300

  100

  59,900

  2,480

  24,800

  Tax units prior to 1990–91.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue change in a full year at 1993–94 income levels and assuming existing levels of personal allowances of replacing the present rates and thresholds of income tax with a structure in which(a) the first £2,500 incurred tax at 20 per cent., (b) £2,500 to £30,000 at 25 per cent., (c) £30,000 to £50,000 at 30 per cent., (d) £50,000 to £75,000 at 40 per cent., (e) £75,000 to £100,000 at 50 per cent., (f) £100,000 to £250,000 at 60 per cent. and (g) over £250,000 at 70 per cent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated revenue cost in a full year at 1993–94 income levels from imposition of the specified regime is £510 million. This does not allow for any behavioural effect that might result from such changes to the tax system and does not include capital gains tax.

  New Change Building
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in resolving the dispute concerning outstanding payments to contractors on project 1215 at New Change, EC4 on behalf of the Bank of England; and when Mr. R. Simpson, the managing director of R. M. Simpson Ltd. (Heating Engineers) of London SE26, can expect a reply from the Chief Secretary to his letter to him of 19 March.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: I have no record of receiving such a letter, although I now have a copy. My private secretary wrote to Mr. Simpson on 21 June.

  Personal Investment Authority
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the costs to date of the proposed personal investment authority.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: The PIA is a company limited by guarantee which will be applying to the Securities and Investments Board for recognition as a self-regulating organisation under the Financial Services Act. The costs to date are a matter for the company.

  Excise Duty
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value to the Exchequer of excise duty levied on(a) beer, (b) wine and (c) spirits, for the latest financial year; and if he will make a statement.
  94
  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: The information requested, for the year ending March 1993, is as follows:

  £ million

  Beer

  2,377

  Wine and made wine

  979

  Spirits

  1,659

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Mates
  Eleven tests have been completed in Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office since November 1992. Five of these were won by the in-house providers, two by outside contractors and four by a combination of both, as follows:

  Transit (computer systems)—Contracted out

  Bridge inspection vehicles—Retained in-house

  Roadman training centre—Retained in-house

  Road testing machines—Retained in-house

  Castlenavan Quarry—Combination

  Grounds maintenance (two tests)—Retained in-house

  Sewer maintenance—Combination

  Sludge maintenance (two tests)—Combination

  Catering—Contracted out

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, together with the respective dates, those meetings of the EC Council of Ministers which were attended by Ministers in his Department in the latest 12 months.

  Mr. Mates
  None. Northern Ireland's interests like those of the rest of the United Kingdom at EC Council meetings are represented by the Minister with the lead United Kingdom policy responsibility.

  Clubs
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to publish in the near future the review of the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; and if he will make a statement.
  95
  Mr. Ancram
  The review is still in progress. In due course, the Government will publish proposals for amending legislation.

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the annual cost of administering each education and library board in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Belfast

  North-Eastern

  South-Eastern

  Southern

  Western

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1990–91

  6,229

  6,840

  6,727

  7,227

  6,365

  1991–92

  8,903

  8,962

  8,080

  9,155

  7,496

  11992–93

  7,888

  7,429

  6,266

  7,360

  6,532

  1 Estimated

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the education authorities in Northern Ireland and the total number of pupils for which each education and library board is responsible.

  Teachers

  Other Staff

  Board Area

  Full-lime

  Part-time1

  Full-lime

  Part-time

  Belfast

  3,635

  58

  1,557

  2,683

  North-Eastern

  3,994

  118

  1,741

  4,365

  South-Eastern

  3,410

  77

  1,260

  3,263

  Southern

  3,964

  95

  1,730

  4,199

  Western

  3,507

  34

  1,823

  4,735

  1 Information is not available on the number of part-time teachers. The figures in this column are based on the number of part-time teacher hours worked, expressed as full-time equivalents.

  Note: Data for teachers covers all those employed in schools in the boards' areas, but not necessarily by the boards. Figures for other staff relate to boards' staff only.

  Education Department
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of people employed in the Department of Education (Northern Ireland) in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1984

  568

  1985

  588·5

  1986

  602

  1987

  606

  1988

  615·5

  1989

  621

  1990

  638·5

  1991

  631

  1992

  622

  1993

  655

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the annual cost of administering the Department of Education (Northern Ireland) in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The costs for each of the last three financial years were:
  96
  Mr. Ancram
  The education authorities in Northern Ireland are the five education and library boards and the total numbers of pupils are as follows:

  Number

  Belfast

  66,183

  Western

  65,478

  Northern-Eastern

  74,328

  South-Eastern

  64,300

  Southern

  75,030

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time (i) teachers and (ii) other staff were employed in each education and library board area in Northern Ireland in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ancram
  The latest information relates to 1992–93 and is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  12·5

  1991–92

  13·0

  11992–93

  14·8

  1 Provisional outturn.

  Pensions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the actual and estimated future annual totals for old age pension payments to people resident in Northern Ireland annually from 1990 to the year 2000.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to table 9.22 of the Government's Public Expenditure Plans for Northern Ireland (Cmnd 2216), a copy of which is in the Library. Expenditure plans for the years 1996 to 2000 are not yet available.

  European Community Funding
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the annual transfers of EC moneys to Northern Ireland are(a) payments to Northern Ireland under each specific EC fund and (b) payments channelled via the United Kingdom Government and not explicitly identified as common agricultural policy transfers or other such transfers.
  97
  Mr. Mates
  The greatest part of the annual transfers of EC monies to Northern Ireland are made via the United Kingdom Government as payments from either the European regional development fund, the European social fund or the European guidance and guarantee fund (EGGF). Other small payments are made by the European Commission direct to recipients which are not passed through the United Kingdom Government.

  The majorty of payments under the guarantee section of the EGGF are made centrally on a United Kingdom basis through the Intervention Board Executive Agency and are not recorded on a territorial basis. There are no other transfers of EC monies to Northern Ireland via the United Kingdom Government.

  Babies (Eye Defects)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each year from 1976 to the latest available date, the numbers of babies born in Northern Ireland with(a) no eyes, (b) small eyes, (c) damaged optic nerves and (d) all recorded eye defects; and if he will estimate the comprehensiveness of the recorded information.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: The information is not collated centrally in the form requested. During the years 1980 to 1988, five babies were born in Northern Ireland with no eyes, 47 with small eyes and 28 with cataract. The number of babies born with eye defects between 1976 and 1981 were as follows:

  No eyes or small eyes

  Other eye defects

  1976

  2

  2

  1977

  2

  1

  1978

  2

  3

  1979

  12

  22

  1980

  12

  29

  1981

  12

  19

  The Northern Ireland genetics service, which has provided the information, believes it to be reasonably comprehensive.

PRIME MINISTER

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the horse racing industry.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  the Government are keen to see the industry prosper and, as my hon. Friend knows, we have in recent months taken various measures to help it to do so. I also welcome the establishment of the new British Horseracing Board and wish it success in its aim of putting racing in this country on a sound financial footing.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he is making to the letter on THORP from the Japanese groups delivered to him on 15 June.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.
  98
  So far as I am aware, no trace of the letter can be found.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his public statements on THORP since November 1990.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on 17 June 1993 at columns 987–88.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those hon. Members with whom he has had meetings to discuss THORP since November 1990.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets hon. and right hon. Members regularly and discusses a range of topics.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been attending a European Council meeting in Copenhagen.

  Irish Republic (President)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost to the United Kingdom of each visit made by the present President of the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Workplace Creches
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list, for the Civil Service in the Whitehall area, how many(a) men and women are directly employed, (b) buildings are used and (c) workplace creches are in place, or so much of the information requested as is available.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the Whitehall area there were approximately 4,560 men and 3,080 women employed in the home civil service at 1 April 1993.

  There are 27 common user estate buildings and two civil service workplace nurseries. A further nursery serving this area is scheduled to open in November. A number of Departments and agencies also have places in a private nursery in the vicinity.

TRANSPORT

  British Transport Police
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the Government's conclusions on the response to the consultation document "The Future Status of British Transport Police".

  Mr. Freeman
  We have today issued our conclusions on the consultation exercise and I am arranging for a copy to
  99
  be placed in the Library of the House. I welcome this opportunity of confirming our decisions that overall control will remain in the public sector; that a provision in the operator's licence will make it compulsory to use BTP for the administration of law and order on the railway; and that there will be levels of policing laid down which operators will be required to provide.

  The Government do not intend to change the policing of London Underground. The London Underground area of the BTP will continue largely as at present to provide these services.

  A5 (Dunstable Bypass)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the target date of autumn 1993 for the publication of draft orders under the Highways Act for the A5 Dunstable bypass stated in the letter from the then Minister for Roads and Traffic to the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire of 23 March remains in place.

  Mr. Key
  We hope to publish draft orders next spring. The delay results from a need to examine more fully the environmental impact of the road on the sensitive areas through which it passes. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Air Accident Report
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on air accident report 3/93; and what action he plans to take, and when, on the recommendations in this report.

  Mr. Norris
  This accident report, by my Department's air accident investigation branch (AAIB), relates to an incident on 9 March 1992, when an aircraft suffered damage soon after take-off from Frankfurt and diverted to London Heathrow. The AAIB has made a thorough analysis of this incident and its causes and consequences and have produced a valuable and comprehensive report.

  The AAIB has made two recommendations, directed at the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). These recommendations have been accepted and the appropriate alterations will be included in the next amendment to the Manual of Air Traffic Control Part I, due on 28 June 1993.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he sent a copy of air accident report 3/93 to the Library.

  Mr. Norris
  No copies of air accident report 3/93 were sent to the Library. Copies of AAIB reports are sent to the Library in the event of accidents and incidents likely to attract considerable public interest or where Members have indicated a particular interest in the investigation.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many hon. Members were sent copies of air accident report 3/93 when it was published on 9 June.

  Mr. Norris
  None. The air accidents investigation branch (AAIB) send copies of their reports to all Members of Parliament who express an interest in a particular investigation.

  The AAIB published an interim bulletin on this accident in June 1992 but no Members indicated an interest in receiving a copy of the formal investigation report.
  100

  Railway Track Support Grant
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will require a reassessment of rail freight rates in light of the proposed track support grant; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the track support grant is to be made available to the Cambrian coast railway; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he expects to make an announcement regarding the level and distribution of track support grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We envisage that Railtrack will be able to accept on to the rail network any freight flow which can cover its avoidable costs. The track charge grant is aimed at assisting flows which cannot cover those costs. It follows that grant will be flow specific, not route specific. The public expenditure provision for the new grant will be determined in the course of the current public expenditure planning round.

  Taxis
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps will be taken under the new proposed regulations to ensure that ex-licensed black cabs are not used for other taxi purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  At present, the law requires that when a vehicle licensed as a taxi in London is sold, or the licence has expired without plans for renewal, the vehicle licence plate must be returned to the licensing authority. Once this has been done the taxi becomes a private vehicle and although it can be used as a minicab, it is an offence to use it to ply for hire. In addition, the display of any sign or notice on it which includes the words "taxi", "cab" or "hire" is prohibited.

  Outside London, a London-type taxi may be used as a hackney carriage if it is licensed by the local district council, but it may not be used as a private hire vehicle at all because it might be mistaken for a taxi. If unlicensed it may be used as a private car only.

  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is proposing to take to enforce prosecution of unlicensed minicabs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Minicabs in London are not licensed, and their use for pre-booked journeys is perfectly legal. It is illegal for them to accept hirings in the street. The police already have powers to take action in such cases.

  I am, however, reviewing the regulation of taxis, minicabs and private hire vehicles in England, including London, and I hope to publish a Green Paper on this subject shortly.

  A418
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department will publish its proposals for the A418 trunk route in Buckinghamshire.

  Mr. Key
  Preparations are in hand to consult the public about the A418 west of Aylesbury to Wing proposals later this year.
  101

  Portwood Roundabout
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to give the approval and finance for the installation of traffic lights at the Portwood roundabout giving access to the M66.

  Mr. Key
  Approval has already been given to install lights on the Portwood roundabout so that traffic leaving the M63 does not queue on the motorway. Funds have been made available to carry out the work this financial year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans she has to help the milk industry following the reduction of EC financial support for the school milk scheme; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what is her policy towards the provision of subsidised school milk; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Until the Commission presents its detailed proposals for expenditure under the school milk scheme in 1994, I am not able to make a clear statement of future policy in this area.

  Common Land
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to introduce legislation regarding common land and overgrazing; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  As regards legislation concerning common land, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 8 June at col.291.

  Environmentally damaging overgrazing on common land and elsewhere is being tackled under legislation covering hill livestock compensatory allowances (HLCAs) and the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. We plan to adjust other livestock premiums to complement the action already being taken on HLCAs. In addition, we have carried out consultations on a new moorland scheme which will also contribute to reducing overgrazing.

  Ewe and Suckler Cow Premiums
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the criteria by which the national reserve of ewe and suckler cow premium is distributed to applicants.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The categories to be covered by the national reserve were the subject of a consultation exercise, and the details are currently being finalised. The necessary national legislation will be made later in the summer.

  New Farmers
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what capital incentives are available to make farming more accessible to new entrants.

  Mrs. Shephard
  No capital incentives available are aimed specifically at new entrants to the farming industry.
  102
  However, young farmers (those under 40) taking out first improvement plans under the farm conservation grant scheme are eligible for additional grant of 25 per cent. of the normal rates of grant towards the cost of capital investments of benefit to conservation and the environment.

  CAP Fraud
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total amount of expenditure by the EC's administration concerned with seeking out fraud in the operation of the comon agricultural policy over the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; what is the value of the fraudulent activities which they discovered during this period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  A number of units within the Commission have an interest in dealing with CAP fraud. Information on their administrative costs is not available as the general budget of European Communities does not give this detail.

  The Commission's annual report on the fight against fraud includes details of CAP fraud and irregularities and measures to combat these. The 1992 report and action programme for 1993, COM(93)141 final, was the subject of explanatory memorandum 6203/93 of 20 May 1993 submitted by the Paymaster General. A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House.

  Redundant Farm Buildings
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grant aid is available for the purpose of restoring redundant farm houses and associated buildings in order that they may once again form the basis of an active farming unit.

  Mrs. Shephard
  My Department does not offer grant aid for the restoration of redundant dwellings on farms. However, grants are available under the farm and conservation grant scheme for the repair or refurbishment of traditional farm buildings currently in agricultural use using traditional materials and construction methods.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve the way his Department gives assistance towards meeting the employment needs of people with disabilities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have asked the Employment Service to introduce a new major programme for people with disabilities from 1 April 1994. It will be called "access to work" and will assist people who need help to overcome barriers to work resulting from disabilities.

  Access to work replaces and adds to the help currently available under the special aids to employment, adaptations to premises and equipment, fares and work, and personal reader service schemes, which will be wound up. More people with a wider range of needs will be helped. Assistance will no longer be limited to prescribed, specific forms. Within resources available, it will be provided flexibly to meet need.

  Access to work will be open to unemployed, employed or self-employed clients registerable as disabled with

  103
  priority for unemployed people. New forms of help available will include communication support for deaf people, adaptations of vehicles to get to work, and support workers for people with severe physical disabilities, mental illness or with learning difficulties.

  In addition, from 5 July 1993, unemployed deaf people will be able to get help towards the cost of communicators at job interviews. Trials of other forms of communicator support for deaf people entering employment will be taking place in four locations during 1993. Lessons learned will be taken into account in access to work.

  Under access to work there will be an upper limit, at a level to be specified as soon as possible, to the amount of financial help any one individual can receive over a five year period, but entitlement to support will begin again after five years. Employers will be asked to make a 50 per cent. contribution towards assistance for employees who have worked for them for six months or more. These contributions will be capped over the five year period at a level to be specified. Employers will also be expected to pay for the cost of one-off items of equipment or help costing less than £100 for their employees who have worked for them for six months or more. Employers will not be asked for any contribution for new recruits or employees who have worked with them for less than six months.

  The job introduction scheme, which encourages employers to take on people with disabilities for short trial periods, will continue separately. The business on own account scheme, which currently provides assistance with general business setting up costs to only a very small number of severely disabled people, will be discontinued. However, those wanting to enter self-employment will be eligible for help under access to work.

  I believe that the introduction of access to work will be an important step in helping to release, in the workplace, the individual potential and initiative of people with disabilities and to meet their employment needs.

  CBI
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss training issues.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to an early meeting. Such meetings are held regularly.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the borough of Rochdale have been unemployed for more than a year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on claimant unemployment by duration is available quarterly and on the unadjusted basis only.

  In April 1993, in the Rochdale local authority district, there were 3,586 claimants who had been unemployed for more than one year.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the measures taken to reduce unemployment in the 18 to 25 years age group.

  Miss Widdecombe
  All unemployed people in the 18 to 25 years age group are eligible, subject to qualifying 104
  criteria, for the full range of employment, enterprise and training measures available through the employment service, training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies. This is in addition to the advice and placement help which the employment service offers all unemployed people through its job centre network.

  Fishing Companies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fishing companies went into liquidation from 1975 and passed their obligation to pay redundancy to his Department; and how many fishermen were paid redundancy in each case.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Unemployment, Barnsley
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each of the three Barnsley constituencies the latest figures for(a) unemployment, (b) those who have been unemployed for one year, (c) those who have been out of work for at least five years and (d) those on training courses.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on claimant unemployment by duration is available quarterly, for the months of January, April, July and October, and on the unadjusted basis. The information requested is given in the table.

  Information on the numbers of people on training courses is collected at training and enterprise council (TEC) level and shows that in March 1993 there were 6,300 people on employment training and youth training courses in the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC area.

  Non-seasonally-adjusted claimant unemployment by duration—April 1993

  Total

  Unemployed over one year

  Unemployed over five years

  Barnsley Central

  4,329

  1,746

  233

  Barnsley East

  3,892

  1,478

  242

  Barnsley West and Penistone

  4,016

  1,437

  205

  Redundancies
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now publish the Government's case to the European Court of Justice concerning employee representation under the EC Collective Redundancies Directive 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 14 June at column 451.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies were notified in the latest year for which figures are available, expressed as a percentage of the total work force in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the north-west and (c) the travel-to-work areas of Accrington and Rossendale, Blackburn, Burnley and Pendle in east Lancashire.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Data on redundancies are obtained from the quarterly Labour Force Survey which provides figures for Great Britain only. Estimates of the numbers of
  105
  redundancies, in the three months prior to each survey, are shown in the table. Information for travel-to-work areas is not available.

  Great Britain

  Percentage of employees

  North West

  Percentage of employees

  Spring 1992

  322,000

  1·5

  32,000

  1·4

  Summer 1992

  278,000

  1·3

  35,000

  1·5

  Autumn 1992

  310,000

  1·4

  29,000

  1·2

  Winter 1992

  344,000

  1·6

  45,000

  1·9

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action has been undertaken to date by his Department to implement the recommendations of the EC Council of Ministers in 1986 on the subject of disabled people and employment within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Many of the issues covered by the EC Council of Ministers' recommendations had already been addressed by the United Kingdom prior to 1986. Since then we have:

  carried out a thorough review of all our employment and training provision for people with disabilities;

  undertaken wide-ranging consultations on proposals to improve the effectiveness of that provision;

  improved the local specialist disability services for employers and individuals by introducing placing assessment and counselling teams;

  ensured that equal opportunities principles apply to the delivery of training provision through training and enterprise councils and local enterprise councils;

  made delivery of employment rehabilitation more accessible locally through contracts with the voluntary sector;

  introduced a disability symbol so that employers who are committed to employing people with disabilities can communicate this publicly. The symbol was strengthened from 1 June 1993 so that employers who use the symbol now have to agree to five specific commitments to action relating to good employment practices;

  taken positive action to ensure that people with disabilities have priority for a place on each of the Department's main employment and training programmes for which they are suitable and eligible;

  announced improvements to our special schemes. which through the introduction of access to work next year, will increase both the range of help available to disabled people to overcome barriers to work and the number of disabled people who can be helped;

  reviewed the funding arrangements for our sheltered employment and will shortly be issuing a consultative document with proposals to improve their effectiveness.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to employers outlining what constitutes reasonable cause for the dismissal of a registered disabled person.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is a question of fact for the court to decide whether there is reasonable cause under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 for a particular dismissal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not given any statutory power to lay down guidelines of the kind suggested.

  Guidance to employers on their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 is given in a leaflet "Employers Obligations—Notes for Guidance" which is issued by the employment service.

  Advice to employers on employing disabled people, whether or not they are registered, is contained in the code
  106
  of practice on the employment of disabled people available from the employment service. This is a voluntary code and there is no legal obligation on employers to observe it. We would expect that if an employer acted in accordance with the guidance and spirit of the code it would be most unlikely that a court would hold him or her to have acted unreasonably.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the implementation of paragraphs 77 and 78 of the approved code of practice in regard to the survey conducted under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The impact of paragraphs 77 and 78 (regarding the monitoring of exposure to hazardous substances at the workplace) was covered in a two-part survey on the regulations, carried out by inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities.

  The full report of the evaluation will he published in July and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of manufacturing jobs in each European Community region in each year since 1980; and what proportion of the regional total number of jobs they represented.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Statistics on employment by European Community region are published by the EC Statistical office in a series of reports entitled "Regional Statistics". Published reports covering years up to 1985 are available in the Library. Reports covering later years are in preparation but no publication date has yet been announced.

  Maternity Provisions
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to implement the new maternity provisions set out in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill before October 1994.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All the provisions of the EC Pregnant Workers Directive will be implemented in United Kingdom law by October 1994, as the directive requires.
  107

  Job Losses, Stoke on Trent
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what meetings he, or officers in his Department or agencies or consultancies under his Department, have organised to discuss the effect of job losses in Stoke on Trent.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Meetings are held when appropriate by officials of the Employment Department, the employment service and the Staffordshire training and enterprise council to discuss the effect of job losses in Stoke on Trent. The most recent meeting was held on 6 May 1993 and another is planned for 28 July.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War (Depleted Uranium)
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of depleted uranium during Operation Desert Storm.

  Mr. Hanley
  Depleted uranium was used by coalition forces in tank armour and ammunition. British use in the conflict was confined to a small number of rounds of tank ammunition.

  Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the consultation on the proposals to close the Royal Naval Engineering college at Manadon to be completed.

  Mr. Hanley
  Comments on the consultative document which outlines our proposals for the future of the Royal Navy first degree engineer officer training and the Royal Naval Engineering college, Manadon, a copy of which is in the Library of the House have been requested by 1 July 1993. In response to a request from the trades unions however I am happy to announce an extension of 10 working days.

  Service Accommodation (Cyprus)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the capital expenditure used in the provision of new and renovated accommodation for(a) families and (b) single service personnel in Cyprus for the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the five financial years ending on 31 March 1993, capital expenditure on service families' accommodation in Cyprus has been £13,191,000, all of which was for new accommodation. Capital expenditure on accommodation for single service personnel has been £8,897,000 of which £7,384,000 was for new accommodation and £1,513,000 for renovation.

  International Commitments
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the ability of existing regiments and battalions to meet all current international commitments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and their constituents. The 108
  Government's position is set out in its response to the Defence Committee's Second Report, Session 1992–93, on "Britain's Army for the 90s", which the Committee published on 16 June.

  Exports
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the share of the world market achieved by British defence exports in 1992 and so far in 1993.

  Mr. Aitken
  In 1992, Britain's share of the world defence export market (in terms of new contracts let) was 20 per cent.—putting us in second place only to the United States of America. Based on our achievements so far this year we believe that we are on course to retain this market share.

  Overseas Service
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel are currently serving on duty outside the United Kingdom; and in which principal locations.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 1 April 1993, the number of United Kingdom regular forces serving overseas was 70,436. The main locations were:

  Continental Europe (including former Yugoslavia)

  Cyprus

  Elsewhere in the Mediterranean, near east and Gulf

  Hong Kong

  Elsewhere in the far east

  and Gibraltar.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet other EC Defence Ministers to discuss the deployment of troops in Bosnia.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I met a number of my European colleagues at a meeting of NATO's Defence Planning Committee in Brussels on 25 May. Our discussions covered a wide range of issues, including the deployment of forces in the former Yugoslavia. I keep in regular contact with other European Defence Ministers on such matters, which remain under continuous review.

  Job Opportunities (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about Ministry of Defence job opportunities in North Yorkshire.

  Mr. Aitken
  Plans that will result in the reduction, rationalisation and transfer-out of posts in North Yorkshire have already been announced, and work is continuing to ensure that a cost-effective balance is achieved between our front-line forces and supporting infrastructure, but I can assure the hon. Member that there will continue to be a large MOD presence in the county.

  Royal Naval Reserve
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on the future of the Royal Naval Reserve.
  109
  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 17 June at columns 1009–12.

  United Nations Peacekeeping
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Nations peacekeeping and other operations involve British service men and women; and what are the numbers posted to these operations.

  Mr. Hanky
  As at early June the numbers of British service personnel serving with United Nations operations was as follows:

  Number

  Former Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR)

  2,446

  Cyprus (UNFICYP)

  592

  Cambodia (UNTAC)

  122

  Western Sahara (MINURSO)

  15

  Iraq-Kuwait (UNIKOM)

  15

  Hydrographic Department
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planned work of the Hydrographic Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence Hydrographic Department will continue to provide specialist input to defence programmes and plans and specialist advice to other Government Departments.

  Departmental Residential Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on empty residential property owned by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Empty residential properties which are surplus to long term requirements are sold wherever possible. Empty properties which are required in the long term but for which there is no immediate need are wherever possible leased to local authorities and over 900 properties are currently on lease in this way. Not all empty properties are surplus to requirements however as some are undergoing major maintenance or refurbishment and others are earmarked for incoming families and future deployments.

  Exports
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to assist United Kingdom defence industries to increase the proportion of their output supplied to overseas markets.

  Mr. Aitken
  Within my Department, the Defence Export Services Organisation assists United Kingdom defence industry market and sells its products and services overseas. We provide a wide range of advice and services including the promotion of exhibitions, the compilation of market surveys, help with foreign contacts and the offer of training and advice to customer countries.
  110

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are in former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 15 June there were 2,608 British forces personnel on the ground in the former Yugoslavia.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the meetings he has held with his European colleagues about the progress of the Eurofighter 2000 so far in 1993.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not discussed Eurofighter 2000 with his German, Italian and Spanish counterparts this year. I met the State Secretaries of the partner nations on 5 April in Bonn to review progress on the project and I have discussed this matter with my German counterpart, Herr SchÕnbohm, on two further occasions.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet his European colleagues to discuss the Eurofighter 2000.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet his German, Italian and Spanish counterparts to discuss Eurofighter 2000.

  Belize
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the timetable for withdrawal of the British garrison from Belize.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 14 June at col.475 and the answer that my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 13 May at cols 561–62.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is as follows:

  Activity

  Result In house/Contractorised

  Flight checking services 115 Squadron—RAF Benson

  Contractorised

  Domestic services Gateway house—RAF Brize Norton

  Retained in house

  Engineering and Supply/Multi-activity contract RAF Scampton

  Contractorised

  Elementary flying training RAF Topcliffe

  Contractorised

  Catering—A and AEE Boscombe Down

  Contractorised

  111

  Activity

  Result In house/Contractorised

  Grounds maintenance Royal Marine Establishments

  Retained in house

  Domestic and administration services Wethersfield

  Contractorised

  Number of psychiatric hospitals1 1978 to 1990–91

  All psychiatric hospitals

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  19

  17

  17

  18

  18

  18

  18

  21

  23

  19

  17

  16

  16

  Yorkshire

  36

  36

  36

  37

  36

  34

  35

  37

  38

  33

  35

  36

  40

  Trent

  64

  63

  64

  64

  65

  65

  67

  62

  61

  53

  58

  53

  49

  East Anglian

  22

  22

  23

  25

  24

  25

  26

  24

  24

  25

  25

  21

  23

  North West Thames

  18

  19

  19

  18

  18

  18

  18

  21

  24

  21

  22

  22

  20

  North East Thames

  20

  20

  20

  21

  21

  21

  21

  22

  23

  25

  28

  28

  31

  South East Thames

  29

  29

  29

  29

  31

  31

  31

  31

  32

  33

  29

  35

  36

  South West Thames2

  34

  35

  35

  34

  35

  37

  35

  35

  34

  40

  46

  40

  35

  Wessex

  38

  42

  42

  43

  47

  54

  64

  79

  88

  29

  41

  39

  37

  Oxford

  19

  21

  20

  20

  20

  21

  24

  24

  30

  21

  24

  25

  17

  South Western

  56

  57

  55

  59

  60

  61

  63

  68

  73

  54

  58

  53

  60

  West Midlands

  36

  37

  37

  38

  41

  41

  43

  55

  57

  37

  39

  40

  36

  Mersey

  15

  15

  14

  13

  13

  12

  11

  11

  14

  15

  16

  15

  16

  North Western

  14

  13

  13

  17

  17

  19

  21

  22

  22

  16

  16

  16

  20

  Special Health Authorities

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  England

  421

  427

  425

  437

  447

  458

  478

  3513

  3544

  422

  455

  440

  437

  1 A hospital where 90 per cent. or more of the available beds are allocated to the psychiatric (mental illness and mental handicap) specialities. For years 1987–88 to 1990–91 mental handicap community units have been excluded. These units can generally be defined as facilities staffed by the NHS and managed separately from any hospital, which is located in the community, and provides not more than 24 residential places for people with learning disabilities.

  2 Number for 1987–88 estimated.

  3 These totals may be inflated by the inclusion of Mental Handicap Community Units.

  Sources: SH3 (Hospital Classification) 1978 to 1986.

  KHO3 (4th Quarter) 1987–88 to 1990–91.

  Neonatal Units
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neonatal units there were in each of the last five years; and how many of these units had a named consultant in charge.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available on the number of neonatal units in the last five years is shown in the table. Every baby in a neonatal intensive care cot will have a consultant paediatrician who is responsible for that baby's care.

  Number of hospital units recording beds available for neonatal intensive care

  Number

  1987–88

  1221

  1988–89

  211

  1989–90

  210

  1990–91

  208

  1991–92

  2—

  Source: KHO3.

  1 Includes an estimated figure for South West Thames.

  2 Data are being collected in a different form with effect from 1991–92 due to redesignation after the National Health Service reforms were introduced.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to calculate the effect of dioxins on humans.
  112

HEALTH

  Mental Hospitals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental hospitals there were in each region and nationally in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Sackville
  The expert Advisory Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has reviewed the toxicology of dioxins on a number of occasions. It has set a tolerable daily intake (TDI) for dioxins of 10 picograms per kilogram body weight per day. Provided that individual intakes of dioxins do not exceed this level no risk to health is anticipated.

  Hospital Services, London
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to publish the reports of the six reviews of specialties in London; and what role their advice will play in decisions about the future of hospital services in London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The specialty reviews will be published in full tomorrow and copies will be placed in the Library and Vote Office at 10.30 am. The chairmen of the review teams will hold a press conference to coincide with the publication.

  The Government set out their proposals for improving the National Health Service in London in "Making London Better", published on 16 February, copies of which are available in the Library. The specialty reviews were announced then, in response to a recommendation in Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report. The independent review teams were established to address the extensive duplication and fragmentation of services in six specialties (cancer; cardiac; neurosciences; renal; plastic surgery and children's specialist services) and make recommendations

  113
  on their future disposition. Their reports are independent advice to Ministers and the NHS, not statements of Government policy.

  Work on developing the proposals set out in "Making London Better" has progressed well since February. The recommendations of the specialty reviews represent a further necessary stage in that process, but not its conclusion. The review recommendations will form part of a complex jigsaw of factors informing decisions about the future pattern of services in London. The recommendations will be fed into the local process—already well under way—of developing sensible and sustainable proposals which meet the Government's objectives of improved patient care, support for excellence in teaching and research and value for money. Academic interests must be taken into account. Above all, proposals must be supported by NHS purchasers, reflecting patient preferences through the internal health market. No decisions are being taken to close any hospital, or make major service changes, on the basis of the specialty reviews alone.

  "Making London Better" set out a timetable for long-term change. Clearly, some issues will be resolved more quickly than others. We anticipate that the main proposals for the future configuration of services will be put forward in the autumn. Proposals for major changes to services would, of course, he subject to full statutory public consultation, according to established procedures.

  Persistent Vegetative State
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the implications of the case of Anthony Bland for the funding by the national health service of the care of patients who have been in PVS for more than one year in cases where the patient's family wish treatment to continue.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Decisions on the care of patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS) are made by doctors in consultation with the care team and the patient's relatives/friends. Treatment of PVS patients, in common with all chronically ill long-stay patients, is funded from national health service resources.

WALES

  Pensions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) members and (b) dependants are currently in receipt of (a) civil service pensions, (b) NHS pensions, (c) teachers' pensions, (d) armed forces pensions and (e) local government pensions in Wales; and what is the average amount of pension for (i) members and (ii) dependants in each category.

  Mr. Redwood
  Separate information for Wales on civil service, national health service, teachers and armed forces pension recipients is not readily available. Figures for the eight Welsh county councils, which include 77 other bodies whose superannuation funds are run by these councils, are given in the table.
  114

  Pensions and Annuities, 1991–92

  Number at 31 March 1992

  Average Pension/annuity1 (£ per person)

  Retired employees

  36,952

  2,396

  Dependants

  8,128

  894

  Source: Local Government Superannuation Funds returns.

  1 Excluding lump sums, transfers and refunds of contributions.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 346–48, if he will list the urban investment grants given by the Cardiff Bay development corporation, over the past eight quarters broken down by the same statistical headings.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Project—NCM relocation

  Developer—ABP (Grosvenor Waterside)

  Grant paid—£550,000 (January-March 1993)

  Total grant approved——£2·5 million

  Private investment—£14·5 million

  Forecast permanent jobs—400

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many urban investment grants have been made in excess of £250,000 by the Cardiff Bay development corporation; to which property developers or owners they have been made; and how many other offers the corporation has made of over £250,000 which were not taken up.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the details of urban investment grants made by Cardiff Bay development corporation in the reply given today. The corporation has made no other offers over £250,000 which were not taken up.

  Quarrying
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by mineral planning authority the number of quarrying prohibition orders that have been issued, the number of appeals that have been made against them, and the inspector's decision in each case, over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  There has been one. The order was made by Mid Glamorgan county council in respect of Ewenny quarry at Bridgend. Two objections were made to the order and following a public inquiry the inspector recommended that the order be not confirmed. The former Secretary of State accepted that recommendation and his decision was issued accordingly. There is at present an application by the county council before the High Court challenging the decision.

  European Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the review of boundaries for European parliamentary constituencies in Wales to be completed; and what consultations he proposes to hold on the membership of the committee to conduct such a review.

  Mr. Redwood
  These are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  115

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the expenditure on administration by each local authority in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information for 1989–90 and earlier years is not available on a consistent basis and is not yet available for 1992–93. The information available is given in the table:

  Local education authority net current expenditure on administration

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  5,992

  7,903

  Dyfed

  5,847

  5,370

  Gwent

  6,628

  6,821

  Gwynedd

  n/a

  n/a

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,347

  9,459

  Powys

  2,290

  2,254

  South Glamorgan

  4,519

  5,406

  West Glamorgan

  5,245

  5,131

  n/a = Not available.

  Flooding, Llandudno
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people registered at the emergency centres during the recent flood at Llandudno; how many were offered alternative accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Aberconwy borough council reports that some 3,800 people have so far registered at the emergency centres at Llandudno and Conwy. Of these, about 2,500 have been offered alternative accommodation, but the number requiring medium to long-term alternative accommodation is thought to be nearer 1,000. The borough council is, of course, continually updating these figures.

  Linseed
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that Welsh linseed farmers will be paid the same as their English counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Payment rates for linseed have been calculated under the rules of the arable aid payment scheme. The yield regions for future years are under discussion.

  Craft Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to help the craft industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The craft industry makes an important contribution to the economic and cultural life of Wales and a wide range of assistance is available from the Welsh Development Agency, Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Arts Council

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 728, in which non-departmental public body each vacancy exists; and for how long the vacancy has existed.
  116
  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Since 11 June, two vacancies have been filled: one on the Sports Council for Wales and one on the Board of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Appointments made by the Secretary of State for Wales Vacancies at 11 June 1993

  NDPB

  Number of vacancies

  Date vacancy commenced

  Agricultural wages committee and agricultural dwelling house advisory committee:

  —Clwyd

  1

  February 1993

  —Dyfed

  1

  February 1993

  —Glamorgan

  1

  April 1993

  —Gwent

  1

  May 1993

  Plant variety and seeds tribunal:

  —Strawberries

  1

  June 1993

  Snowdonia national park committee

  1

  March 1993

  Cardiff Bay development

  1

  March 1993

  corporation

  12

  May 1993

  Sports council for Wales

  21

  April 1993

  Gwent community health NHS trust

  1

  March 1993

  Gwent FHSA

  1

  November 1992

  Clwyd North CHC

  1

  April 1993

  Cardiff CHC

  1

  October 1992

  Land authority for Wales

  1

  April 1991

  Housing for Wales

  1

  April 1989

  Welsh Development Agency

  2

  December 1992

  1 One of these vacancies has now been filled.

  2 This vacancy has now been filled.

  Strategic Planning Guidance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 27 May,Official Report, column 716, and 17 June, Official Report, column 726, what plans he has for arrangements for remuneration of the Assembly of Welsh Counties for its costs in (a) carrying out the strategic planning guidance exercise and (b) publicising it.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to him on 27 May.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environmental Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to participate in the Institute of Waste Management conference in Torbay from 15 to 18 June; and what recent meeting he has had with officials of the institute regarding the completion of waste management legislation.

  Mr. Yeo
  I addressed the opening session of the Institute of Waste Management conference on Tuesday 15 June. I shall be meeting representatives of the institute and of the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors and local authority associations soon to discuss waste management licensing.

  New Age Travellers
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what legal action he intends to take to remove(a) the new age travellers and (b) their vehicles trespassing on land at Gipsy lane, Burnett, Avon, owned by his Department; and if he will make a statement;
  117
  (2) what measures he intends to take to protect the Wynne family from disturbance arising from trespass of vehicles occupied by new age travellers on his department's land adjacent to their home at Gipsy lane, Burnett, Avon;

  (3) what discussions he has held with the chief constable of Avon and Somerset about removal of illegal trespassers from his Department's land at Gipsy lane, Burnett, Avon;

  (4) when he intends to introduce measures (a) to end the open-ended financial commitment to meet new age travellers' accommodation needs and (b) to give local authorities stronger powers to deal quickly with illegal camping.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State directed Avon county council in 1990 under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to make additional accommodation available for gypsies as only one site had been provided in Avon at that time. It is for the council to comply with that statutory directon and determine where sites should be located.

  I announced legislative proposals on 31 March 1993 to give local authorities stronger powers to tackle illegal camping and to repeal the duty to provide sites and the power to provide grant. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend, the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on 31 March at column 291. But the duty remains in force until it is repealed and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remains responsible for ensuring that Avon county council complies with the duty and the direction.

  PSA services offered this surplus former Crown Suppliers depot at Burnett for sale on the open market in October last year and the council made an offer to purchase the property in order to develop it as a gipsy caravan site. Travellers have camped illegally on the site since the council's intentions became public.

  PSA services, as current owner of the site is preparing to take action for possession under order 113 of the rules of the supreme court.

  PSA services and its agents, Building Management South and West have liaised with the police on handling throughout, and have had discussions with Mr. and Mrs. Wynne about their position. I understand that a gated fence has been erected to prevent encroachment by the travellers on to Mr. and Mrs. Wynne's property.

  It is open to the council to apply for Exchequer grant to cover the capital costs of developing this site if it obtains planning permission to develop it as a gipsy caravan site. Gipsies are defined in the 1968 Act as
  "persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin"
  and it is for the council to decide who is or is not a gipsy, and to ensure that sites are only provided for—and used by gipsies.

  The cost of providing an authorised site on this land for gipsies, as defined in section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, has been estimated by Avon county council as £795,500.

  Methane Emissions
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what prospects there are for reducing methane emissions from closed landfill sites; and what licensing requirements he will make for(a) existing and (b) new landfill sites in respect of methane emissions.
  118
  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have published guidance on dealing with gas from closed landfill sites, and is undertaking further work on methods of controlling methane emissions. Resources are made available to authorities for investigation and remedial measures by means of supplementary credit approvals.

  Conditions in individual waste disposal licences are a matter for waste regulation authorities. The Government issue guidance to authorities on the discharge of their licensing functions. In particular, revised guidance on landfill gas was issued as Waste Management Paper No. 27 in 1991; further guidance on licensing, which will deal with the need to control methane emissions, is in preparation.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been undertaken by his Department into methane gas emissions from landfill sites.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department recently commissioned the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) of the Department of Trade and Industry to conduct a preliminary study on the subject. Their report was made available in draft form to the Watt committee and to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution for their study of waste incineration. The final report will shortly be available as a departmental research report.

  The ETSU study showed that there is considerable uncertainty about the contribution of landfills to United Kingdom methane emissions. Preliminary estimates lie in the range of 0·6 to 5·3 Mt/year, with a best estimate of about 2 Mt/year. Given the level of uncertainty in the input level, it is not possible to predict the level of emissions to within a factor of two of the best estimate. There are two main sources of uncertainty: waste arisings data and information on the amount of methane oxidation that occurs close to the surface of a landfill.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the cost to the United Kingdom economy of implementing the carbon dioxide targets agreed at Toronto in 1988.

  Mr. Yeo
  No targets were agreed by the United Kingdom Government at Toronto in 1988.

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in rank order all local authorities in England showing receipts of community charge in 1992–93 as a percentage of the expected yield.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am arranging for the information requested to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Landfill Directive
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the revised version of the EC landfill directive from the European Commission.

  Mr. Yeo
  The European Commission has indicated that they expect to present their revised proposals for a landfill directive towards the end of June.
  119

  Local Government Holidays
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many extra-statutory holidays, in addition to bank holidays, are enjoyed by employees in local government.

  Mr. Curry
  This is entirely a matter for local government. We understand from the Local Government Management Board (the employers organisation) that in addition to statutory and other general national holidays, national agreements entitle local government employees to a further two extra-statutory holidays the timing of which are determined by local authorities after consultation with their employees.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 113, if he will make a statement on the issues discussed and decisions taken at the Trondheim biodiversity conference in May.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Trondheim conference on biodiversity, convened by the United Nations Environment Programme, discussed a large range of issues associated with the provisions of the convention on biological diversity. This was one of a number of meetings being held to provide expert opinion which will inform the decisions to be made by the intergovernmental negotiating committee and in time by the conference of the parties to the convention.

  Building Management South-East
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he is taking to remedy the management and control weaknesses which have been identified by the investigation of his Department's internal audit and central inquiry unit into allegations of irregularities at BMSE contracting division;

  (2) if he will name the contractor whose activities have given rise to concern to his Department's internal audit and central inquiry unit during its investigation into allegations of irregularities at BMSE contracting division;

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the findings of his Department's internal audit and central inquiry unit's investigation into allegations of financial irregularities in the BMSE contracting division.

  Mr. Curry
  The following steps have been taken to remedy the management and control weaknesses identified by the internal audit and central inquiry unit investigations:

  an experienced civil service senior manager was brought in to take overall charge of Building Management South East contracting division while a detailed recovery plan was prepared

  the contracts of two members of staff have not been renewed

  a new financial controller has been appointed

  a management action plan has been agreed and implementation of it is being monitored by the BMSE board

  I do not propose to name the contractor whose activities have given rise to concern, as investigations into the case continue.
  120
  It is not customary to place copies of internal audit and central inquiry unit reports in the Library. They are available to the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the usual way.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to respond to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution report on waste incineration; and if he will indicate the nature of his proposed response.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have welcomed the report from the Royal Commission on environment pollution on the incineration of waste as a comprehensive and clear analysis of the role of incineration as a waste management option. It describes incineration in a positive and reassuring light and is likely to go a long way to offsetting public concerns about incineration. The Government will be making a full response to the commission's report in due course.

  Community Care Housing
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the Housing Corporation capital funding to meet community care housing needs is maintained at or above the 1989–90 levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the Housing Corporation capital funding to meet community care housing needs for new schemes to allow new building levels to equal the 1989–90 level.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the proportion of Housing Corporation capital funding to meet new schemes for community care housing needs to levels at or above those given in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation continues to provide support for 3,000 special needs bed spaces a year, which attract revenue funding from the special needs management allowance. The corporation also provides capital support for further units of accommodation—up to 1,500 in the current year suitable—for people with special needs, but not requiring revenue support. No decisions have yet been taken about future levels of expenditure.

  There are many ways of meeting the housing needs arising from community care, including general needs social housing funded by the corporation, in which tenants can receive non-residential care support. Overall, resources for the corporation's approved development programme have been doubled from £935 million in 1989–90 to over £1·8 billion this year.

  The corporation's allocations to housing associations are made in response to the housing strategies prepared by local housing authorities. They in turn are consulted by the social services agencies about their community care strategies.
  121

  Housing (Elderly People)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the housing needs of people over 80 years in Stoke on Trent, North constituency and in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department commissioned Ernst and Young management consultants to carry out an independent study of the housing needs of elderly and disabled people, including those aged 80 years and over. The study has been completed and a series of reports covering different elements of the programme of research is being prepared.

  The Ernst and Young study is restricted to England and will produce representative findings at national and regional levels. Separate studies of the housing needs of elderly and disabled people have been undertaken in recent years by the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office.

  Guidance to local housing authorities will be produced, using the Ernst and Young research, on methods for assessing the needs of elderly people and the comparative costs of different housing and care options to meet their needs. This guidance is referred to in paragraph 18 of the joint circular (10/92) issued by my Department and the Department of Health on housing and community care.

  Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill (Advisory Body)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to establish an advisory body in respect of the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I have announced that the Government are prepared to contribute, for up to three years, towards the cost of a body giving advice on the leasehold reform provisions of the Bill. The Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee has prepared a scheme for an advisory agency and is presently seeking to attract funding from various professional bodies and other organisations.

  Interim Development Orders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to revoke all interim development orders which conflict with good environmental standards and sound environmental protection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave on 22 January 1993 at columns 457–58.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures exist to ensure that the information supplied by BNFL in respect of applications for authorisation for proposed radioactive discharge limits fulfils the requirements of environmental assessment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: Details of the procedures used by Her Majesty's inspectorate of
  122
  pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to assess the radiological implications of the radioactive discharges proposed by BNFL in its applications for new discharge authorisations for Sellafield, including the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, are given in the explanatory memoranda which accompanied the public consultation documents. Copies of these memoranda are in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the application from BNFL for authorisation for proposed new radioactive discharge limits from the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield fulfils the requirements of environmental assessment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: The information provided by BNFL in support of their applications for new radioactive discharge authorisations for Sellafield, including the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, was sufficient to enable Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to conduct detailed assessments of the radiological implications of the company's proposed discharges. These assessments confirmed that doses resulting from the proposed discharges would be well within national and international limits.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made in accordance with EC directive 84/467 Euratom of the projected costs and benefits which will arise from the operation of the BNFL thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is currently considering a report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of pollution and the MAFF inspectorates on the recent consultation on applications for revised authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 for radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site. The revised authorisations would take into account (amongst other things) the operation of the THORP plant.

  Any decision on the applications will be made in accordance with national and EC law, including the relevant requirements of Directive 84/467/Euratom.

EDUCATION

  Pupil Testing
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his present estimate of the costs of the testing of 14-year-old pupils under the arrangements required by his Department(a) by local education authorities and (b) by his Department; and if he will express the figure for the confirmed expenditure as a sum per pupil involved.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department provides support under the grants for education support and training programme for local authority expenditure on training for teachers about national curriculum assessment. In the financial year 1993–94, grant at the rate of 60 per cent. supports £17 million of expenditure for the in-service training of teachers. Over the last three years £50·6 million
  123
  has been supported for this purpose. Information on the precise proportion of this expenditure which relates to the testing of 14-year-olds is not available.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to ensure that universities are not permitted to charge top-up fees for undergraduate courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have given maximum independence to universities and colleges to manage their own affairs. To intervene in the setting of tuition fees would cut across that principle and would exceed my right hon. Friend's legal powers. Public funding for higher education is sufficient. It totals over £4 billion in England and over £270 million in Wales in 1993–94.

  EC Students
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps have been taken to obtain funding from the European Community or other member states in respect of the costs resulting from the enrolment of European Community students for third-level courses in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boswell
  Students from other EC member states attending designated courses of higher education in the United Kingdom qualify for an award covering their course fees up to a specified maximum, where they satisfy basic eligibility conditions similar to those for students who live in the United Kingdom. Reciprocal rights apply to United Kingdom students studying elsewhere in the EC. The Department regularly discusses the distribution of funds for the various EC student mobility programmes with the Commission and representatives of other member states.

  EC Students
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many European Community students enrolled for third-level courses in the United Kingdom in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992; what amount of tuition fee was forgone in respect of European Community students enrolling for third-level coures in the United Kingdom in (i) 1990, (ii) 1991 and (iii) 1992; and what was the total cost of the education of European Community students enrolling for third-level courses in the United Kingdom in (1) 1990, (2) 1991 and (3) 1992.

  Mr. Boswell
  In the academic years 1990–91 and 1991–92 there were respectively 26,837 and 33,133 students from other EC member states studying third-level courses at institutions in the United Kingdom. Data for 1992–93 are not yet available. Except in exchange programmes, higher education institutions have not forgone tuition fees in respect of these students, who, depending on circumstances, either receive an award covering the cost of fees or pay the fees themselves. The cost of provision for EC students is not recorded separately.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (I) if he will list, by local education authority area, those grant-maintained schools already operating on 124
  1 April which (a) have received their final budgets for the 1993–94 financial year and (b) have yet to receive their final budgets for the 1993–94 financial year;

  (2) if he will list, by local education authority area, those grant-maintained schools that started operating on 1 April which (a) have received their final budgets for the 1993–94 financial year and (b) have yet to receive their final budgets for the 1993–94 financial year;

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is contained in the tables. Schools which became self-governing on 1 April this year are asterisked. All schools were notified in March this year of a "proposed final" AMG based on an updating of last year's budget figure on which they are basing current year planning prior to final figures becoming available.

  SELF-GOVERNING STATE SCHOOLS IN RECEIPT OF FINAL AMG BUDGETS
  Barnet

  Mill Hill County School

  Bromley

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  Buller Wood School for Girls

  Charles Darwin School

  Coopers School

  Crofton Junior School

  Hayes School

  Holy Innocents Roman Catholic Primary School

  Kelsey Park School

  Langley Park School for Boys

  Newstead Wood School for Girls (GM)

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  St. John Rigby School

  St. Olave's and St. Saviours Grammar School

  Hounslow

  Gumley House Convent School for Girls*

  Gunnersbury Catholic School*

  Humberside

  Wold Newton Primary School

  Kingston

  Tiffin School

  Richard Challoner School*

  Holy Cross Convent School*

  Kirklees

  Castle Hall School

  Heckmondwike School

  Lancashire

  Bacup and Rawtenstall School

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  Newton Bluecoat School

  Liverpool

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  Newham

  Stratford School

  Oxfordshire

  Shenington C.E. Primary School*

  Sandwell

  Manor High Community School

  Somerset

  Bruton Primary School

  Sexey's School

  Surrey

  The Beacon School

  125

  Collingwood School

  De Stafford School

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  Glyn School

  Gordon's School

  Guildford County School

  Hawkedale First School

  Heathside Secondary School

  Manor County First School

  Rosebery School

  St. John the Baptist School

  St. Paul's Catholic School

  Send CE First School

  Stoneleigh First School

  Thamesmead School

  Tameside

  Audenshaw High School

  West Hill High School*

  Warwickshire

  The Avon Valley Grant-Maintained School

  Ash Green Grant-Maintained School

  Hartshill School

  Myton School

  Queen Elizabeth School Atherstone

  Rugby High School for Girls*

  Alcester Grammar School*

  Wolverhampton

  Moseley Park GM School

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS WITH PROPOSED FINAL AMG BUDGETS
  Avon

  Beechen Cliff School

  Oldfield School

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth School for Boys

  Bedfordshire

  Ashcroft High School*

  Crawley Green Infant School*

  Icknield High School*

  Lea Manor High School*

  Lincroft Middle School*

  Manshead School

  Queensbury School

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  Wootton Upper School*

  Berkshire

  Cippenham Middle School GM

  Denefield School

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  Downs School (The)

  Herschel Grammar School

  Holy Family RC Combined School

  Langley Grammar School

  Priory School

  Reading School

  Southlands School

  St. Bartholomew's School

  Upton Grammar School

  Whitelocke Infant and Nursery School*

  Bexley

  Barnehurst Infant Grant-Maintained School

  Barnehurst Junior Grant-Maintained School

  St. Mary and St. Joseph's School*

  St. Columba's RC Boys School*

  Birmingham

  King Edward VI Aston School*

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys*

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls*

  King Edward VI Five Ways School*

  126

  King Edward VI Handsworth School*

  Baverstock GM School

  Great Barr GM School

  Hall Green School*

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  Small Health School

  Bolton

  Canon Slade School*

  Crompton Fold Primary School

  George Tomlinson School*

  St. James' CE School

  Bradford

  Bingley Grammar School

  Hanson School*

  Laisterdyke Middle School*

  Oakbank School*

  Thornton School*

  Brent

  Claremont High School GM

  Copland Community School and Technology Centre

  Convent of Jesus and Mary High School*

  Kingsbury High School*

  Queens Park Community School*

  Buckinghamshire

  Brookmead School

  Overstone Grant-Maintained Combined School

  Hamilton Combined School*

  Beechview Middle School*

  Bridgewater Hall School

  Brindley Hall School

  Beaconsfield High School

  The Chalfonts Community College

  Wycombe Royal Grammar School*

  Lord Grey School*

  The Radcliffe School*

  Calderdale

  Crossley Heath School (The)

  Holy Trinity CE Senior School

  North Halifax High School (The)

  Rastrick High School*

  Salterlee Primary School

  Cambridgeshire

  Ailwyn Community School*

  Bassingbourn Village

  Comberton Village College*

  Crosshall Infants School

  Crosshall Junior School

  Deacons School*

  Gamlingay Village College

  Jack Hunt School

  Longsands Community College*

  Orton Wistow Primary School*

  Park Lane Primary School

  Sawston Village College*

  Sawtry Village College

  Stanground College*

  St. Helens Primary School

  The Kings School

  The Queens School

  Wheatfield Junior

  Cheshire

  Bankfield High School (GM)

  Fallibroome High School*

  Henbury School*

  Kettleshulme St. James GM CE Primary School

  Croydon

  Edenham School*

  Riddlesdown School

  Cumbria

  Appleby Grammar School*

  Dallam School*

  127

  Harraby School*

  Hayton CE Primary School

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar School*

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Queen Katherine School

  St. Aidan's High School

  Scotby CE VA Primary School

  Trinity School

  Derbyshire

  Belmont Primary School

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  Repton Primary School*

  Netherthorpe School

  The Ecclesbourne School

  Chellaston School

  The Merrill Community School

  Belper School*

  John Port School*

  Murray Park Community School*

  Noel Baker School*

  Heanor Gate School*

  Devon

  Colyton Grammar School

  St. Boniface's College*

  Teign School*

  Torquay Boy's Grammar School

  Dorset

  Avonbourne School

  Bournemouth School

  Bournemouth School for Girls

  Budmouth School

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School

  Parkstone Grammar School

  Poole Technical High School*

  St. Walburga's RC Primary School*

  Woodroffe School (The)

  Dudley

  Ellowes Hall School (The)*

  Kingswinford School (The)

  Old Swinford Hospital School

  Ealing

  Brentside High School

  Drayton Manor High School

  Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls (The)

  Greenford High School

  Northolt High School

  Wood End First School

  Wood End Middle School

  Essex

  Appleton School

  Beauchamps School

  Belfairs School*

  The Boswells School

  Bromfords School

  Castle View School

  Chalvedon School

  Chelmer Valley High School*

  Chelmsford High School for Girls

  The Cornelius Vermuyden School

  Davenant Foundation School*

  The Deanes School

  The Eastwood School

  Elmwood Primary School

  The Fitzwimarc School

  Furtherwick Park School

  Gable Hall School*

  Grays School*

  The Greensward School*

  Great Totham Primary School

  The Hedley Walter School

  Jotmans Hall Primary School*

  Katherines Primary School

  The King Edmund School

  128

  King Edward VI Grammar

  King Harold School

  King John School

  Newlands Spring Primary School

  Newport Free Grammar*

  North Crescent Primary School

  Northlands Junior School

  Northwick Park Infant School*

  Northwick Park Junior School*

  The Philip Morant School

  The Plume School

  Rainsford School*

  Rickstones School

  Rolph CE VA Primary School*

  Saffron Walden High School

  Southend Girls High School*

  St. Andrews CE Primary*

  St. Clere's School*

  St. Martin's School*

  Tendring High School*

  Thorpe Bay High School*

  Thurstable School

  Torells School

  Westborough Primary School

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  Westcliff High School for Girls

  West Hatch High School

  William De Ferrers School*

  William Edwards School*

  Gloucestershire

  Balcarras School

  Chipping Campden School

  Cotswold School

  Chosen Hill School

  Churchdown School

  The Crypt School

  Katharine Lady Berkeleys School

  Marling School

  Newent Community School

  Pates GM Grammar School

  Rednock School

  Ribston Hall High School

  Robinswood Primary

  Saintbridge GM Technology College

  St. Gregory The Great RC Primary School

  Stroud High School

  Tewkesbury Grant-Maintained School

  Blue Coat CE Primary School*

  Picklenash School*

  Wyedean School*

  Hammersmith

  London Oratory School

  Hampshire

  Abbotswood Middle School

  All Hallows RC School*

  Arnewood School (The)

  Bay House School*

  Blackfield Middle School*

  Bohunt Community School*

  Burgate School

  Calmore Middle School*

  City of Portsmouth Boys School (The)

  Crofton School, Fareham

  Front Lawn Middle School

  Hardley School GM

  Priory County Primary School (The)

  Ringwood School GM Comprehensive

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School*

  Testwood School

  Havering

  Abbs Cross School*

  Coopers Company and Coburn School (The)*

  Frances Bardsley School (The)

  Hereford and Worcester

  St. Augustine's RC School (*)

  St. Bede's RC School (*)

  Hertfordshire

  St. Mary's Catholic Primary School

  Christ Church CE Primary School

  Parkside First School

  Hertingfordbury Cowper JMI School

  Rickmansworth School

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  Francis Bacon School

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  Parmiters School

  The Bishop's Stortford High School

  Ashlyns School*

  Dame Alice Owens School*

  Bushey Meads School*

  Bushey Hall School*

  Queen's School*

  Mount Grace School*

  Hillingdon

  Oak Farm Infant School

  Oak Farm Junior School

  Grange Park Infant School*

  Grange Park Junior School*

  Bishopshalt School

  Haydon School

  Vyners School

  Queensmead School

  Uxbridge School

  Northwood School

  The Hayes Manor School

  Mellow Lane School

  The Douay Martyrs School

  Abbotsfield School*

  Swakeleys School*

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  Kent

  The Grammar School for Girls Wilmington

  The Cornwallis School

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  Dartford Grammar School

  Homewood School

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  St. George's CE School

  Thamesview School

  Aylesford School

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  Oldborough Manor Community College

  Senacre Technology School

  Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys

  Snodland CE Primary School

  Wrotham School

  Cranbrook School

  Angley School

  Fulston Manor School

  Minster College

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  The Robert Napier GM School

  The Skinners' School

  Borough Green Primary School

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  Holy Trinity CE Primary School

  Sandown Court Community College

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  The Archbishop's CE School

  The Bradbourne School

  The Canterbury High School

  The Malling School

  Meopham School

  St. Simon Stock School

  The Hugh Christie School

  The Wildernesse School*

  Westlands High School*

  St. Gregory's RC Comprehensive School*

  St. John Fisher School*

  Sutton-at-Hone CE Primary School*

  130

  Roseacre Junior School*

  Mascalls School*

  The Charles Dickens School*

  The Folkestone School for Girls*

  Lambeth

  Archbishop Tenisons*

  Bishop Thomas Grant School*

  Dunraven School*

  La Retraite RC Girls School

  St. Bernadette's Junior School

  Lancashire

  Archbishop Temple School*

  Baines School

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar

  Lancaster Royal Grammar

  Leicestershire

  Abington High School*

  Bushloe High School*

  Long Field GM High School

  South Wigston High School*

  Uppingham Community College*

  Lewisham

  Turnham Primary School

  Lincolnshire

  Ancaster High School (The)

  Bourne Abbey Primary School

  Caistor Grammar School

  Carre's Grammar School

  Castle Hills GM School (The), Gainsborough

  Ermine Junior GM School

  Gartree GM School (The)

  Gleed Girls GM School

  King Edward VI School, Lincs

  Kings School Grantham (The)

  Lacey Gardens Junior School*

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  Magdalen School (The)

  Malcolm Sargent County Primary (The) *

  Monks' dyke High School

  North Kesteven GM School

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School (ALF)

  Queen Elizabeth's Grammar (HORN)

  Rauceby School CE GM

  Robert Pattison GM School

  Skegness Grammar School

  St. George's GM School

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  William Farr CE Comprehensive School

  Yarborough High School

  Norfolk

  Acle High School

  Cliff Park High School*

  Costessey High School

  Cromer High School

  Dereham Church First School

  Downham Market High School

  Flegg High School*

  Great Yarmouth High School*

  Gresham Primary School

  Heacham Middle School

  Robert Kett Middle School

  Loddon Middle School

  Lynn Grove High School*

  Marshland High School

  Norwich Road School

  Redgate Middle School

  St. Clements High School*

  Sheringham High School

  South Wootton GM Junior School

  West Flegg Middle School

  Wymondham College

  Northamptonshire

  Danesholme Junior School*

  King John Middle School

  131

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  Kingswood School

  Lodge Park School

  Manor School

  Montagu School

  Moulton Primary School

  Northampton School for Boys

  Sir Christopher Hatton School

  Southfield School for Girls

  Weavers School

  Windmill Primary School

  Woodnewton Way Junior*

  Wrenn School

  Nottinghamshire

  George Spencer School*

  Greenwood Dale School*

  Ravensdale Middle School

  Rochdale

  Crossgates Primary School

  Smithy Bridge Primary School*

  St. James Primary School*

  Wardle High School*

  Sheffield

  Clifford CE GM School

  Shropshire

  Adam's Grammar School

  The Corbet School*

  Solihull

  Hatchford GM Primary School

  Southwark

  The London Nautical School

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary School*

  Staffordshire

  Cannock Chase High*

  St. Thomas More RC School

  Sutton

  Cheam High School

  The John Fisher School

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  St. Philomena's School*

  Wallington High School for Girls*

  Wallington County Grammar*

  Wilson's School

  Tower Hamlets

  Raines Foundation School

  Trafford

  New Wellington High School*

  Ashton-on-Mersey County High School*

  Sale Moor County High School*

  Walsall

  St. Thomas More RC Comprehensive GM School

  Shire Oak Community School*

  Streetly School

  Waltham Forest

  Highams Park School

  Wandsworth

  Ethelburga Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  Hillbrook Primary School*

  Graveney School

  Burntwood School

  Elliott School (GM)

  Salesian College

  John Paul II RC School*

  Southfields School (GM)*

  Wiltshire
  132

  Aloeric GM Primary School

  Highbury School

  Lavington Comprehensive School

  St. Augustine's RC GM Comprehensive School

  Wirral

  Calday Grange Grammar School*

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the respondents to the consultative document "A Common Funding Formula for Grant-maintained Schools" issued on 18 December 1992; and if he will place a copy of each response in the Library.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Following is a list of respondents to the consultative document "A Common Funding Formula for Grant-maintained Schools" issued on 18 December 1992. Respondents commented on this consultation paper, as others, on the understanding that their replies would be treated as private correspondence. They may, of course, give their views wider circulation should they wish.

  A further consultation document on a common funding formula was issued on 10 June. Section B of that paper contains a summary of responses to the first paper. Copies are available in the Library.

  GM Schools

  Adams' Grammar School, Shropshire

  Audenshaw High School, Tameside

  Beaconsfield High School, Buckinghamshire

  Bullers Wood School, Bromley

  Calday Grange Grammar School, Wirral

  The Canterbury High School, Kent

  The Chalfonts Community College, Buckinghamshire

  Chalvedon School, Essex

  Charles Darwin School (Bromley GM Head Teachers), Kent

  Chelmsford County High Girls, Essex

  Chosen Hill School, Gloucestershire

  The Cornwallis School, Kent

  Cranbrook School, Kent

  Crompton Fold Primary School, Bolton

  Crosshall Junior School, Cambridgeshire

  The Crossley Heath School, Calderdale

  Dartford Grammar School, Kent

  Desborough School (Berkshire Association of GM Heads), Berkshire

  Epson and Ewell School, Surrey

  Ermine Junior GM School, Lincolnshire

  Gordon's School, Surrey

  Hardley School, Hampshire

  Haydon School, Hillingdon

  Heathside School, Surrey

  The Hedley Walter High School, Essex

  Hendon School, Barnet

  Herschel Grammar School, Berkshire

  Highcliffe School, Dorset

  Holy Family Primary RC School, Berkshire

  The King's School, Grantham, Lincolnshire

  The King's School, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire

  The Schools of King Edward VI, Birmingham

  King Edward VI Grammar School, Essex

  Kirkbie Kendal School, Cumbria

  The London Nautical School, Southwark

  Meopham School, Kent

  Newent Community School (Gloucs Association of GM Heads), Gloucestershire

  Northolt High School, Ealing

  Oak Farm JMI School, Hillingdon

  The Park Lane Primary School, Cambridgeshire

  Riddlesdown High School, Croydon

  Robinswood Primary School, Gloucestershire

  St. Bartholomew's School, Berkshire

  St. Helen's Primary School, Cambridgeshire

  St. John's School, Wiltshire

  St. John The Baptist School, Surrey

  Thamesmead School, Surrey

  Tiffin School, Kingston

  The Westborough Primary School, Essex

  133

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys, Kent

  Wilson's School, Surrey

  Wolverhampton Girls' High School, Wolverhampton

  The Woodroffe School, Dorset

  LEAs: Inner London

  Camden

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lewisham

  Southwark

  Tower Hamlets

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  LEAs: Outer London

  Barnet

  Bexley

  Bromley

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Kingston

  Redbridge

  Sutton

  LEAs: Metropolitan

  Barnsley

  Birmingham

  Bolton

  Calderdale

  Cleveland

  Dudley

  Durham

  Knowsley

  Merton

  Newcastle

  Solihull

  Trafford

  Wolverhampton

  LEAs: Shires

  Avon

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cornwall

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  Oxfordshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Surrey

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  Specified Bodies

  Association for All Speech Impaired Children (AFASIC)

  Association of Educational Psychologists

  Association of Heads of GM Schools (AHGMS)

  Association of London Authorities (ALA)

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities (AMA)

  Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)

  Campaign for State Education (CASE)

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

  London Boroughs Association (LBA)

  134

  National Association of Governors and Managers (NAGM)

  National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)

  National Association of Maintained Charitable Secondary Schools

  National Association for Special Educational Needs (NASEN)

  National Deaf Children Society (NDCS)

  National Union of Teachers (NUT)

  Oxford Diocesan Board of Education

  Professional Association of Teachers (PAT)

  Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR)

  Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB)

  Special Educational Consortium

  University of Sussex at Brighton

  Others

  Colin Baker of Grey Coat Hospital School, Westminster

  R. D. Hurdman, Headteacher East Barnet School, Barnet

  R. J. Howling, The Purbeck School, Dorset

  Student Sabbaticals
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will seek information as to how many full-time students are on paid sabbaticals and at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's consultations on student union matters have covered the uses to which public funds may legitimately be put, including supporting the activities of sabbatical officers. My right hon. Friend is now finalising proposals for action.

  School Ballots
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total sum of money paid to date to the Electoral Reform Society for its conduct of opt-out ballots in schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total sum paid to the Electoral Reform Society for its conduct of ballots at schools considering grant-maintained status is almost £980,000 to date, covering 1,070 ballots over the past five years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plutonium
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the destination and end-use of shipments of plutonium nitrate from Dounreay; what plans there are to increase these shipments; and for how long he expects these to continue.

  Mr. Eggar
  Plutonium nitrate recovered from prototype fast reactor (PFR) fuel is shipped from Dounreay to Sellafield where facilities exist for its conversion to plutonium oxide and long-term storage under international safeguards.

  The use to which the plutonium oxide is put is a matter for the owners, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).

  Plutonium nitrate shipments are an operational matter for the UKAEA, which will be determined in the light of arisings from the reprocessing plant at Dounreay.

  It was announced in the statement by the then Secretary of State for Energy on 21 July 1988 at columns 1302–11 that the Government had decided to fund the reprocessing plant at Dounreay until 1996–97, to process spent fuel from PFR.
  135
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 159, what were the names of the Japanese reactors which provided the irradiated fuel from which the plutonium to which he refers was extracted and returned to Japan.

  Mr. Eggar
  Such matters are for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the opening date of the Mox demonstration facility at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 15 April 1993,Official Report, column 720.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what countries are expected to ship waste to, and receive plutonium from, the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  The thermal oxide reprocessing plant is a recycling facility which will reprocess spent nuclear fuel to recover the plutonium and uranium in a form which can be used for electricity generation. Nuclear waste will not be shipped to THORP. The plant has contracts from customers in Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Plutonium would be returned only under international safeguards and upon receipt of appropriate assurances covering peaceful use, physical protection and controls on re-transfer.

  Spent Batteries
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations and individuals to whom his Department sent a copy of their consultation document of 5 May on options for spent battery collection under EC directive 91 /157/EEC.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  More than 800 copies of the Department's consultation paper have been issued so far, to all local authorities, to relevant trade and industry representative organisations, consumer, retail and environmental groups, and to companies and individuals who have expressed an interest in the subject to the Department. Responses are now being assessed.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what electricity generating capacity from renewable resources his Department is committed to underwrite financially for the United Kingdom as a whole by the year 2000;

  (2) when he expects to publish his renewable energy strategy review document.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are committed to working towards new renewables generated capacity of 1500 MW (DNC) by 2000 and will publish a renewable energy strategy review document later this year, in the light of the report of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group and the coal review. I expect to make an announcement on future NFFO arrangements in due course.
  136
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions between his Department and the EC Commission concerning the extension of non-fossil fuel obligation funding for renewables beyond 1998.

  Mr. Eggar
  Discussions with the European Commission are continuing.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for the last five years, what percentage of(a) total electricity supply, (b) total electricity generating capacity and (c) primary energy supply was supplied by renewable energy sources; what proportion of renewable capacity received non-fossil fuel obligation funding; and what percentage of his Department's energy research budget was allocated to (i) nuclear research projects and (ii) renewables research.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  The percentage of total electricity supply generated by renewables over the last five years is as follows:

  per cent.

  1988

  1·9

  1989

  1·8

  1990

  1·9

  1991

  1·7

  1992

  2·1

  The percentage of total electricity generating capacity which has been accounted for by renewables over the last five years is as follows:

  per cent.

  1988

  2·2

  1989

  2·1

  1990

  2·1

  1991

  2·2

  1992

  2·6

  The percentage of primary energy supply generated by renewables over the last five years is as follows:

  per cent.

  1988

  0·8

  1989

  0·8

  1990

  0·9

  1991

  0·8

  1992

  0·9

  Source:United Kingdom digest of energy statistics, 1991 and 1992.

  Since the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation was introduced in 1990, the proportion of renewables capacity receiving NFFO funding has risen to around 12 per cent. (as at 31 March 1993).

  The percentage of my Department's energy research budget spent on nuclear and renewables is as follows:

  Nuclear

  Renewables

  1987–88

  79·9

  9·1

  1988–89

  83·8

  8·6

  1989–90

  79·8

  10–8

  1990–91

  69·6

  13·1

  1991–92

  72·0

  19·0

  Source: Annual review of Government funded research and development, 1990 and 1992.
  137

  Collieries (Market Testing)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal about those collieries which are market testing; how long this period of market testing will last; and what discussions there have been about the closure of any of those collieries.

  Mr. Eggar
  Decisions about the future of individual collieries are a matter for British Coal. No deadline for the period of market testing has been set. Completion of the process will depend on the progress of commercial negotiations between British Coal and electricity generators over additional sales of coal.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those countries which receive United Kingdom aid to which arms have been exported in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Needham
  For the period requested, statistics of arms exports could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on aid is available from "British Aid Statistics", and for arms transfers in 1992 the hon. Lady may wish to consult the United Kingdom's return for the United Nations register of arms transfers. Both documents have been placed in the Library.

  Registered Letters
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the current procedures in relation to the delivery of registered letters by the Royal Mail; and what alterations to this procedure were carried out in the delivery of registered letters to addresses used in connection with the Hoover free-flight promotion.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Royal Mail's procedures for delivering registered letters are as follows:As registered items arrive in the receiving sorting office they are recorded in a registered mail book. This book, together with the registered items, is sent to the local delivery office where the items are again checked against the book. As items are delivered to, or collected by, the customer, he or she signs for the number of registered items received. There was no variation of these procedures in respect of the Hoover offer. The agency handling the promotion collected and signed for its registered letters in the usual way.

  Recycling
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage investment in capital equipment for the purpose of recycling of waste materials in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Waste disposal costs are increasing, as a result of the higher standards required under certain provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This is helping to make recycling a more attractive waste management option, and investment in capital equipment for this purpose will flow naturally as a result. The Government are also encouraging investment by undertaking a number of initiatives aimed at developing markets for recycled materials. These include offering a £20 million grant towards the cost of papermaking plant,138
  with the capacity to recycle an extra 350,000 tonnes of waste paper a year, and providing grants for various research and development projects which seek to identify new uses for recovered materials, and which develop and demonstrate new recycling technologies.

  Exporters
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new plans he has to assist exporters.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 16 June,Official Report, column 603.

  Rural Sub-post Offices
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to ensure that rural sub-post offices in Northern Ireland will be kept open; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Post Office Counters Ltd. is making strenuous efforts to keep rural offices open, for example through its community office programme. In our review of the Post Office we are exploring a number of ways to underpin the rural network to ensure that post office services continue to be readily accessible to all in towns and in the country, throughout Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received a reply to the letter from his department on 26 May to the European Commission on the eligibility of British warship yards for the shipbuilding intervention fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have not yet received a reply to my letter of 26 May to Commissioner van Miert.

  Structural Steel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 601, what representations he has received about the dumping of structural steel by countries within the European Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have received no representations about the dumping of structural steel in the United Kingdom by countries within the European Community. I have, however, received a number of representations about imports into the United Kingdom of allegedly subsidised structural steel from other EC member states.

  Political Contributions
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of investigations that have been taken place by the companies investigation branch into allegations of irregularities or non-compliance of the Companies Acts in relation to non-disclosure of political contributions in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints have been made to Companies
  139
  House in regard to the non-disclosure of political contributions to political parties which have led to investigation by the Serious Fraud Office in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Company Directors Disqualification Act
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directors have been disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The total number of directors notified to Companies House as disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was 419 in financial year 1990–91 and 459 in 1991–92. The provisional figure for 1992–93 is 649. Information is not compiled on a calendar year basis.

  High Definition Television
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if the United Kingdom has the power to veto on funding for high definition television via the EC; and what is the upper limit of the contribution that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make to this project;

  (2) which plants in which countries will benefit from EC funding of research and development of high definition television; and how many jobs will be created or sustained in the United Kingdom;

  (3) what level of funding is being proposed by the European Commission for high definition television; how much the United Kingdom is being asked to contribute; and what system is proposed for development by which firms;

  (4) what was the most recent Council of Ministers meeting at which high definition television and its development was discussed; and how the United Kingdom voted.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  At the Telecommunications Council on 16 June, unanimous agreement was reached on the framework of an action plan to help launch widescreen television services. The four-year plan will be for Community funds, together with funds from other sources, to be used to partially offset the additional costs to broadcasters and programme producers of broadcasting TV services (including high definition television services) in the widescreen format. The United Kingdom's contribution to the action plan subsidy will be calculated on a gross contribution of about 15 per cent. less abatement, which would depend on the level of United Kingdom receipts.

  The settlement represents a considerable negotiating success for the United Kingdom:
  The 850 MECU Community subsidy originally proposed by the European Commission has been reduced to 228 MECU (£160m). Additional funding from other sources, including industry, will introduce market discipline.
  The original proposal was to support only the analogue MAC technology. Broadcasters and programme makers using other technologies, including PALPlus or fully-digital technologies will now qualify for assistance.
  The UK also secured a valuable commitment that UK-based companies contributing to the action plan will be given due recognition of this in future European collaborative research
  140
  and development and standardisation activities into digital TV. The European Commission are expected to come forward with proposals for such activities before the end of the year.

  Consumer reaction to widescreen TV will determine how much United Kingdom broadcasters, programme makers and television set manufacturers benefit from the action plan. United-Kingdom-based television set manufacturers already enjoy 20 to 25 per cent. of Europe's manufacturing capacity and thus should be well placed to capitalise on the spread of widescreen. They should also benefit from the ability to participate in future EC research and development in new television technologies.

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers he has to ensure that partners from auditing firms criticised by the DTI inspectors are prevented from having a seat on the Financial Reporting review panel.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Appointments to the financial reporting review panel are a matter for the financial reporting council.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many auditing partners have been barred from practising as a result of critical reports published by his Department since June 1979.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None, so far as I am aware.

  Pennine Commercial Holdings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when will he publish the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' report relating to(a) Pennine Commercial Holdings plc and (b) British Anzam plc.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, the inspectors are reviewing their interim report on Pennine Commercial Holdings plc with a view to submitting a final report. When the Pennine report is submitted, I will consider publication of the report on that company and of the report on British Anzani plc. Both relate to events concerning the Savings and Investment Bank Ltd of the Isle of Man.

  Departmental Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a list of the names and business connections of the individuals who are currently acting as inspectors for his Department.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  D. Donaldson, QC

  Ian Watt, FCA of The Bank of England

  Miss E. Appleby, QC

  Mr. P. Foss, FCA

  Mr. L. Ziman, Solicitor, of Nabarro Nathanson

  Mr. W. Hoffman, FCA of Baker Tilly, Chartered Accountants

  Mr. P. Heslop, QC

  Mr. R. Lewis, FCA of Kidsons Impey, Chartered Accountants

  Mr. E. Hamilton, QC

  Mr. J. Scott, FCA of BDO Binder Hamlyn, Chartered Accountants

  Mr. W. M. Gage, QC

  Mr. A. Gilroy, FCA of BDO Binder Hamlyn, Chartered

  141
  Accountants

  Mr. A. Robertshaw of DTI

  Mr. C. Mayhew of DTI

  Mr. A. Fausset of DTI

  Mr. R. Thomas, QC

  Mr. R. Turner, FCA of Nevill Russell,Chartered Accountants

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress in discussions with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers in respect of member states being able to designate areas within their borders as eligible for objective 2 and 5(b) assistance; and when he expects a decision to be reached.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: No agreement has yet been reached on the method of selection of objective 2 and 5(b) areas for the period 1994 onwards. This issue forms one element of the current negotiations on the review of the structural funds regulations. I do not expect the Council to be in a position to adopt the revised regulations before the end of July.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade ( 1 ) if he will take steps to make available all information held by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. regarding its activities abroad, shipments of plutonium and spent nuclear fuel, in aid of the United States Governments's non-proliferation review;

  (2) what assistance Her Majesty's Government will give to the United States Government's plutonium proliferation review with particular reference to the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: The review is a matter for the United States Government. It has not asked the United Kingdom Government for any assistance. The provision of any information held by BNFL regarding its commercial activities would be a matter for the company.

  Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the future representation of the United Kingdom in ENERO, the EC's environmental research organisation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: That is a matter for future consideration but I hope it will be the new national environmental technology centre.

  Offshore Oil
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those offshore blocks for which licences with obligation well requirements have been issued in the second stage of the 14th round.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: Details of work programmes attached to individual oil and gas production licences are commercially confidential to the licensee. In total, work programmes on the 73 awarded blocks which were offered tinder the second stage of the 14th round include 72 (40 firm and 32 contingent) well obligations. Work programmes on all 110 blocks awarded in the round include 93 well obligations.
  142

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was raised by the Government by the sale of the Warren Spring Laboratory site; and what was the cost of the purchase of the new site in Welwyn Garden City and the construction of the new laboratory.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: A total of £25 million is being raised by the sale of the Stevenage site to Glaxo. The cost of purchasing the site at Welwyn Garden City, constructing a replacement laboratory and moving the staff and facilities was estimated at nearly £33 million.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of its full economic costs in trading terms the Warren Spring Laboratory recovered through the charges levied on customers in 1992–93; and what proportion of the net rate excess of income over expenditure set out in the DTI's supply estimate was met.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: On the basis of unaudited accounts the Laboratory recovered the whole of its full economic costs. The 1992–93 audited accounts are expected to be laid before the House before the summer recess.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the subsidiary targets for the Warren Spring Laboratory for the year 1992–93; and to what extent they were met.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [ holding answer 15 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorkshire (Mr. Hague) on 13 January 1993, Official Report, column 739. On the basis of unaudited results, the laboratory looks to have met its 1992–93 targets.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what limitations there are on the freehold disposal of the site identified for the Warren Spring Laboratory in Welwyn Garden City.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: There are no limitations on the resale of the land at Welwyn Garden City, although I understand that any purchaser would have to enter into a deed of covenant with the management company.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account he took of the possibility of conflict of interest in the report by PA consultants on the Warren Spring Laboratory; and what action was required of PA consultants to guard against conflicts of interest in preparing the report.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 21 June, Official Report, column 20.
  143

SCOTLAND

  Salmon Advisory Committee
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of those individuals not re-appointed to the Salmon advisory committee in 1993 were(a) ineligible through age or (b) unwilling to serve a further term.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: I refer to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 14 June at column 396.

  1993–94

  (See note 1)

  Local authority

  Population as at 30 June 1991

  Capital allocation

  Total revenue budget

  £000

  £000

  Annandale and Eskdale

  37,140

  2·516

  5,269

  North East Fife

  69,930

  2·384

  12,584

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  41,040

  1·275

  6,484

  Edinburgh City

  438,780

  35·532

  117,528

  Banff and Buchan

  85,640

  1·792

  14,033

  Nithsdale

  57,140

  4·244

  8,915

  Grampian

  514,400

  49·713

  470,672

  Note:

  1. Information on local authorities' capital budgets is not held centrally. The Secretary of State does, however, give his consent annually to local authorities to incur liabilities to meet capital expenditure. This is given in the form of individual capital consent allocations as well as consent to meet capital expenses from capital receipts and revenue and private sector contributions. In addition local authorities eligible for assistance from the European regional development fund will receive in 1993–94 supplementary consent equal to the amount of grant they receive. The figures provided are therefore the total capital allocations including housing for 1993–94 and not the capital budgets.

  Loch Lomand
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to ensure co-ordination between inquiries by the Department of Transport marine safety directorate and by the Scottish Office into the fatal speed boat accident on Loch Lomond on the weekend of 5 to 6 June.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: The fatal accident which occurred on Loch Lomond is the subject of an investigation by Strathclyde police, who will make a report to the procurator fiscal in due course. The Marine Safety Directorate, which is also inquiring into the accident, is I understand, co-operating with the police.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take in the wake of the fatal speed boat accident on Loch Lomond last weekend.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 17 June 1993 ]: The Secretary of State's working party, which has been examining management issues affecting Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, is expected to report next month. I understand that safety is one of the issues with which it will deal. We shall give careful consideration to all the recommendations which the working party will be making, including any relating to safety.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent implementation of byelaws on Loch Lomond will require amendment of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, in connection with the requirement of unanimity of riparian owners; and what legislative steps he intends to take in this respect.
  144

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the population, (b) the total capital budget for 1993–94 and (c) the total revenue budget for 1993–94, for (i) Annandale and Eskdale, (ii) North East Fife, (iii) Bearsden and Milngavie, (iv) Edinburgh City, (v) Banff and Buchan, (vi) Nithsdale district councils and (vii) Grampian region.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 June 1993]: The information requested is as follows:

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: For the making of byelaws to regulate the use of inland waters, section 121 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 requires a district or islands council to obtain, subject to certain conditions, the consent of every person having a proprietorial interest in or in relation to the waters. If district or islands councils represent to us that, in general terms, they are placed in real difficulty in meeting the statutory requirements for the byelaws they wish to make, then we shall be prepared to review the existing legislation.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the working party on Loch Lomond and the Trossachs will report.

  Sir Hector Monro:
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: I understand that the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs working party has completed its deliberations and intends to present its report to the Secretary of State during July.

  Forestry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress made to date regarding his review of incentives for forestry investment.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 June 1993]: As part of the review which my right hon. Friend announced on 30 March 1993 in a reply to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) at column 150, the Forestry Commission has issued a consultation paper seeking views on the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to suspend the forestry
  145
  market-testing programme and any internal reorganisation of the Forestry Commission pending the outcome of his review on current incentives for forestry investment.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 June 1993]: The Forestry Commission will continue to undertake its normal business, including market testing, while the Forestry Review Group is carrying out its work. The Commission carried out a major internal reorganisation in 1992 and any proposals for further significant changes will not be considered until the outcome of the review is known.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what projects have been undertaken by Central Scotland Woodland: A Countryside Trust Ltd since its inception; if he will give details of the funding of each project; what outside bodies have been involved in each project; what contribution they have made; and how many people were employed in each project per agency involved.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: Central Scotland Woodlands: A Countryside Trust Ltd. as a private sector company limited by guarantee, with charitable status, is responsible to its board of directors. The principal shareholders are Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Enterprise, Central, Lothian and Strathclyde regional councils and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, Falkirk, Monklands, Motherwell, Strathkelvin and West Lothian district councils. I have asked Sir David Montgomery, its chairman, to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the acreage of Forestry Commission-owned forestry and the total number of Forestry Commission employees in each Scottish constituency; if he will list the projects which the Forestry Commission is carrying out with other agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: The Forestry Commission does not keep records of the area of its landholdings or number of employees by constituency and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Forestry Commission carries out a large number of projects with other agencies and organisations throughout

  Occupation/profession

  Resident in health board area

  Argyll and Clyde health board

  Chairman

  Mr. R. Reid

  Farmer

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Mr. M. Jones

  Company director

  Yes

  Mrs. E. Lander

  Company director

  Yes

  Mrs. J. Le Roux

  Housewife

  Yes

  Dr. J. Moffat

  Retired consultant psychiatrist

  Yes

  Mrs. S. Nelson

  Primary school teacher

  Yes

  Mr. C. Parker

  Company director

  Yes

  Royal Alexandra Hospital National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. T. Gibson

  Former hospice director

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mrs. A. Burns

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mr. A. Durward

  Retired chief executive

  Yes

  Mrs. M. Ford

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mr. A. Gaunt

  Retired commandant, Erskine hospital

  Yes

  Mr. G. Murray

  Retired locomotive driver

  Yes

  146
  Great Britain, particularly in the areas of recreation, conservation and research. This information is not held centrally and could be prepared only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of any offers to purchase the assets of the Forestry Commission which have been received by the review body; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Review Group, established on 30 March 1993 by my right hon. Friend and his forestry Minister colleagues, has not received any offers to purchase assets owned by the Forestry Commission.

  Appointments
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the procedure undertaken by his Department for the nomination and appointment of members of health boards and NHS trusts; and if he will list the individuals who are responsible for the appointments.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: My right hon. Friend is solely responsible for the appointment of non-executive members of health boards and NHS trusts. Nominations may be made by anyone but, in the case of health boards, are invited, in accordance with statute, from local authorities, bodies representative of the medical professions and certain other bodies. For the last round of appointments nominations were also invited through public advertisements.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of individuals appointed to health boards and national health service trusts; and if he will list by health board their current occupation and whether they reside within the health board area.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: The information on non-executive appointments is as follows. Those not resident within the health board area have business or other connections there.
  147

  Occupation/profession

  Resident in health board area

  Ayrshire and Arran health board

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Donaldson

  Electrical engineer

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Dr. K. Fegan

  General medical practitioner

  Yes

  Mr. J. Greene

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Miss M. Grosset

  Company secretary

  Yes

  Miss K. Paterson

  Retired nurse

  Yes

  Mrs. E. Reid

  Health carer

  Yes

  Mr. W. Young

  Company director

  Yes

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mrs. A. Bates

  Former nurse teacher

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. I Allison

  Chartered accountant

  Yes

  Mr. D. Gall

  Retired policeman

  Yes

  Mr. R. Johnston

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Dr. S. Kinnaird

  Auditor

  Yes

  Mr. W. McConnell

  Retail pharmacist

  No

  North Ayrshire and Arran National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. W. Ritchie

  Retired civil engineer

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mrs. A. Dunbar

  School attendance officer

  Yes

  Mrs. K. Donald

  Company secretary

  Yes

  Mr. J. Grier

  Retired banker

  Yes

  Mr. A. Stewart

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mr. K. Tulloch

  Chartered accountant

  Yes

  South Ayrshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Brown

  Retired surgeon

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. W. Mowatt

  Chartered accountant

  Yes

  Mr. H. Currie

  Business consultant

  Yes

  Mr. G. McKinstry

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mrs. A. Wilson

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mrs. D. McLellan

  Housewife

  Yes

  Occupation/profession

  Resident in health board area

  Borders health board

  Chairman

  Mr. D. Kilshaw

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Rev. A. Bennett

  Minister

  Yes

  Miss M. Marshall

  Chartered secretary

  Yes

  Mr. J. Metcalfe

  Retired company chairman

  Yes

  Dr. A. Paton

  Retired general practitioner

  Yes

  Lady Sanderson

  Business consultant

  Yes

  Mr. H. Steven

  NFU Secretary

  Yes

  Dumfries and Galloway health board

  Chairman

  Mr. J. McIntyre

  Farmer

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Mrs. V. Jardine-Paterson

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mr. H. McFadzean

  Farmer

  Yes

  Dr. J. Stubbs

  Retired anaesthetist

  Yes

  Mrs. M. Thomson

  Former member, South of Scotland Electricity Board

  Yes

  Mrs. J. Tulloch

  Company director

  Yes

  Dr. A. Wilkinson

  General practitioner

  Yes

  148 149

  Occupation/profession

  Resident in health board area

  Fife health board

  Chairman

  Mr. R. Baker

  Company director

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Mrs. S. Aitken

  Housewife

  Yes

  Dr. A. Alexander

  General practitioner

  Yes

  Mr. F. Craig

  Company director

  Yes

  Mrs. M. Steedman

  Retired headmistress

  Yes

  Mrs. C. Stenhouse

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mr. G. Thomson

  Chartered accountant

  No

  Forth Valley health board

  Chairman

  Mrs. J. Isbister

  Mental welfare commissioner

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Mr. E. Bell-Scott

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mr. K. Harding

  Newsagent

  Yes

  Dr. G. Hastings

  Unit director, Strathclyde university

  Yes

  Mr. P. Joynson

  Chartered surveyor

  Yes

  Mrs. K. Smith

  Emergency services organiser, WRVS

  Yes

  Mr. C. Stroyan

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Stirling Royal Infirmary National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. G. McKelvie

  Retired surgeon

  No

  Non-executive directors

  Mrs. A. Bowie

  Company director

  Yes

  Mr. G. Houston

  Head of Industrial Society

  Yes

  Mrs. D. Littlejohn

  President, Industrial tribunals

  Yes

  Mr. G. Simmers

  Retired company chairman

  Yes

  Mrs. A. Walker

  University research fellow

  Yes

  Royal Scottish National Hospital and Community National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. A. Ward

  Solicitor

  No

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. W. Hughes

  Company chairman

  Yes

  Ms V. Smart

  Chartered accountant

  Yes

  Professor A. Stewart

  College professor

  Yes

  Mr. D. Tarr

  Chief scientific engineer

  Yes

  Dr. P. Williams

  Engineer

  Yes

  Grampian Health Board

  Chairman

  Dr. C. MacLeod

  Company chairman

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Mr. J. Arbuthnott

  Estate owner/manager

  Yes

  Mrs. C. Ferguson

  Housewife/farmer

  Yes

  Mr. G. McLellan

  Company director

  Yes

  Professor D. Ogston

  University professor

  Yes

  Mrs. M. Park

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mrs. J. Wisely

  Housewife

  Yes

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. A. Broomfield

  Managing director

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Professor G. Catto

  University professor

  Yes

  Professor M. Meston

  University professor

  Yes

  Mr. H. Tocher

  Retired banker

  Yes

  Dr. F. Lyle

  Retired general practitioner

  Yes

  Mrs. A. Scott

  Tax partner

  Yes

  150 151

  Occupation/profession

  Resident in health board area

  Grampian Health Care National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Dr. A. J. Taylor

  Retired general practitioner

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. M. Humphrey

  Farmer

  Yes

  Mr. T. Murison

  Managing director

  Yes

  Mr. G. Robb

  Company director

  Yes

  Mrs. J. Catto

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mr. H. Fullerton

  Chief executive, Grampian Enterprise

  Yes

  Moray Health Services National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Snedden

  Retired banker

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mrs. M. Adams

  Teacher

  Yes

  Mr. R. Anderson

  Farmer

  Yes

  Mrs. L. King

  Retired teacher

  Yes

  Mr. W. Phillips

  Chartered accountant

  Yes

  Mr. J. Royan

  Master butcher

  Yes

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  Chairman

  Mr. W. Fyfe

  Company chairman

  No

  Non-executive members

  Rev. R. Campbell

  Minister

  Yes

  Mr. P. Holst

  Company director

  Yes

  Professor R. Mackie

  University professor

  Yes

  Mr. W. McCreath

  Solicitor

  No

  Mrs. J. Mackenzie

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mr. P. Runciman

  Retired company chairman

  No

  Mr. A. Scobbie

  Managing director

  Yes

  Southern General Hospital National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. A1

  Mr. A. Garland

  Partner, Construction company

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. R. McEwan

  Retired director, Scottish Development Agency

  Yes

  Mrs. A. Moore

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mrs. A. Stewart

  Tax adviser

  Yes

  Mr. H. Tankel

  Retired surgeon

  Yes

  Mrs. S. Bell

  Company director

  No

  Victoria Infirmary National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Dr. J. Dall

  Retired physician

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Dr. R. Colville

  Retired general practitioner

  Yes

  Mrs. D. Glasser

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mrs. L. Howieson

  Pharmacist

  Yes

  Mrs. A. Gilchrist

  Company director

  Yes

  Mr. D. O'Brien

  Chartered accountant

  Yes

  Yorkhill National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mrs. J. Cameron

  Housewife

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Dr. J. Davidson

  Retired consultant radiologist

  Yes

  Mrs. M. Hall

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mr. R. Cleland

  Partner, Recruitment consultancy

  Yes

  Mrs. G. Garner

  Field worker, Action for Sick Children

  Yes

  Mrs. S. Kuenssberg

  Children's panel training organiser

  Yes

  Highland Health Board

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Robertson

  Company chairman

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Mr. J. Ligertwood

  Retired bank manager

  Yes

  Dr. D. MacDonald

  Retired general practitioner

  Yes

  Mr. D. Mackay

  Retired company executive

  Yes

  152 153

  Occupation/profession

  Resident in health board area

  Mrs. A. MacPherson

  Farm business partner

  Yes

  Mr. C. Neilson

  Retail businessman

  Yes

  Mrs. C. Thomson

  Company director

  Yes

  Caithness and Sutherland National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. G. Bruce

  Former company manager

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. J. Gunn

  Chartered accountant

  Yes

  Rev. A. Murray

  Minister

  Yes

  Dr. E. Mackenzie

  Retired general practitioner

  Yes

  Mr. J. Rosie

  Technical assistant

  Yes

  Ms W. Taylor

  Retired nurse

  Yes

  Occupation/profession

  Resident in health board area

  Raigmore Hospital National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Kyle

  Retired surgeon

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. J. Gray

  Retired health board treasurer

  Yes

  Mrs. F. Hunt

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mr. A. Morrison

  Master baker

  Yes

  Professor G. McNicol

  Retired university vice-chancellor

  Yes

  Mrs. J. Robertson

  Housewife

  Yes

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Chairman

  Mr. I. Livingstone

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Dr. W. Criggie

  General practitioner

  Yes

  Mrs. A. Hinshalwood

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mrs. M. Melvin

  Teacher

  Yes

  Mr. D. Millar

  Business consultant

  Yes

  Mr. J. Robison

  Retired colliery official

  Yes

  Mr. J. Thomson

  Director, voluntary organisation

  Yes

  Monklands and Bellshill National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Dr. G. Bell

  Retired general practitioner

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mrs. A. Irvine

  Sales consultant

  Yes

  Mr. D. MacDonald

  Executive director

  Yes

  Dr. M. Moore

  University reader

  Yes

  Mrs. A. Morrison

  Veterinary surgeon

  Mr. W. Huggins

  Retired finance director

  Lothian health board

  Chairman

  Dr. J. Baynham

  Company director

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Professor R. Aitken

  University professor

  Yes

  Mrs. G. Barton

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mr. J. Campbell

  Chartered surveyor

  Yes

  Mr. R. Findlay

  Chief executive, Radio Forth

  Yes

  Mrs. M. Knox

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mr. G. Millar

  Community pharmacist

  Yes

  West Lothian National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. R. Watt

  Company chairman

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. T. Bennie

  Retired banker

  Yes

  Mr. J. Cunningham

  Retired trade union secretary

  Yes

  Mrs. I. Douglas

  Company accountant

  Yes

  Mr. P. Johnston

  School teacher

  Yes

  Mrs. C. Stevenson

  Housewife

  Yes

  154 155

  Occupation/profession

  Resident in health board area

  Orkney health board

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Leslie

  Pharmacist

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Mr. J. Flett

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mr. E. Gibson

  Retired assistant headteacher

  Yes

  Captain M. Gunn

  Ships master

  Yes

  Mrs. E. Kerr

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mr. J. Rendall

  Sub-postmaster/postman

  Yes

  Dr. J. Walker

  General practitioner

  Yes

  Shetland health board

  Chairman

  Mrs. F. Grains

  Housewife

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Mrs. M. Colligan

  Retired teacher

  Yes

  Sq. Leader B. Gregson

  Local government officer

  Yes

  Dr. M. Hunter

  General practitioner

  Yes

  Mr. R. Johnson

  Retired businessman

  Yes

  Mrs. T. Leslie

  Teaching auxiliary

  Yes

  Mr. J. Telford

  Chartered accountant

  Yes

  Tayside health board

  Chairman

  Mr. J. MacFarlane

  Retired company director

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Rev. K. Campbell

  Minister

  Yes

  Mr. D. Davidson

  Pharmacist

  Yes

  Mrs. V. Joiner

  Company director

  Mr. H. Nicoll

  Retired local government officer

  Yes

  Professor R. Olver

  University professor

  No

  Mr. I. Sandison

  Retired company director

  Yes

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  Chairman

  Mr. J. S. Fair

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Non-executive directors

  Mrs. M. Cane

  Retired university lecturer

  Yes

  Mr. G. Lowden

  Chartered accountant

  Yes

  Mr. R. Lyon

  University senior lecturer

  Yes

  Mrs. J. Wood

  Housewife

  Yes

  Professor H. Dick

  University professor

  Yes

  Western Isles health board

  Chairman

  Mr. A. Matheson

  Pharmacist

  Yes

  Non-executive members

  Dr. S. Brydon

  General practitioner

  Yes

  Mr. J. Harrison

  Depute head teacher

  Yes

  Mr. A. Hay

  Retired sales director

  Yes

  Mrs. C. MacAskill

  Housewife

  Yes

  Mrs. F. MacDonald

  Solicitor

  Yes

  Mr. M. MacLennan

  Building society manager

  Yes

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of each NHS trust and health board who are councillors; and which party they represent in each case.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Party

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Mr. R. R. Reid

  Conservative

  Forth Valley Health Board

  Mr. K. Harding

  Conservative

  Grampian Health Board

  156

  Party

  Mrs. J. G. A. Wisely

  Conservative

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Mr. J. P. Robison

  Labour

  Lothian Health Board

  Mrs. M. B. M. Knox

  Conservative

  Shetland Health Board

  Mrs. F. B. Grains

  Independent

  Mrs. M. U. Colligan

  Independent

  Mr. R. L. Johnson

  Independent

  Western Isles Health Board

  Mr. A. Matheson

  Independent

  Grampian Health Care NHS Trust

  Mr. J. M. Humphrey

  Conservative

  157

  Party

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  Rev. A. Murray

  Independent

  Mr. J. Rosie

  Independent

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  Mr. P. Johnston

  SNP

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  Mrs. J. E. Cameron

  Conservative

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by health board and NHS trust the number of nominations for NHS trusts and health boards which have been made by regional councils; and if he will list by health board/NHS trust the number of nominations from regional councils which have been accepted.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 June 1993.]: The information in respect of non-executive appointments made with effect from 1 April 1993 is detailed in the table. The nominations were made for both health boards and NHS trusts.

  Number of regional council nominations for health board/NHS trust appointments

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  3

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  3

  Ayrshire & Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  North Ayrshire & Arran NHS Trust

  Borders Health Board

  3

  Dumfries & Galloway Health Board

  6

  Fife Health Board

  2

  Forth Valley Health Board

  1

  Royal Scottish National Hospital NHS Trust

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Grampian Health Board

  7

  Grampian Health Care NHS Trust

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  5

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  Highland Health Board

  6

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  Raigmore NHS Trust

  Year

  1Anophthalmia

  2Microphthalmia

  3Other eye defect

  All recorded eye defects

  5Neonatal hospital discharge record percentage of coverage of live births

  1980

  0

  3

  13

  16

  75·5

  1981

  0

  7

  12

  19

  78·5

  1982

  0

  2

  13

  15

  83·7

  1983

  0

  2

  19

  21

  85·7

  1984

  0

  6

  17

  23

  85·3

  1985

  3

  7

  20

  27

  85·0

  1986

  0

  2

  13

  15

  87·2

  1987

  0

  3

  18

  21

  87·8

  1988

  0

  1

  17

  18

  91·5

  1989

  2

  1

  22

  25

  95·7

  1990

  3

  3

  26

  32

  95·0

  1991

  0

  8

  40

  48

  98·4

  4 1992

  1

  4

  30

  35

  96·7

  1One or both eyes absent.

  2One or both small eyes.

  158

  Number

  Lothian Health Board

  9

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  3

  Monklands and Bellshill NHS Trust

  Orkney Health Board

  2

  Shetland Health Board

  0

  Tayside Health Board

  1

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Western Isles Health Board

  0

  One of the nominees was appointed to the Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust.

  Sheep Quotas
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has within the EC to seek a reform in the current system of quota allocations for sheep farmers, with particular reference to allowing the transfer of a quota allocation when the farm ownership changes.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 21 June 1993 ]: The introduction of quotas to the sheep annual premium scheme was part of the overall agreement on CAP reform reached in 1992. It is too early to consider major changes to that agreement.

  The EC regulations already contain provisions for producers who took over a farm after the reference year to apply to the national reserve for an allocation.

  Babies (Eye Defects)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year from 1976 to the latest available date, the number of babies born in Scotland with(a) no eyes, (b) small eyes, (c) damaged optic nerves and (d) all recorded eye defects; and if he will estimate the comprehensiveness of the recorded information.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: The table shows the number of babies born annually in Scotland with recorded eye defects from 1980 to 1992 with an indication of the comprehensiveness of the data recorded. Information is not available for the period before 1980 and no separate record is kept of figures for damaged optic nerves.
  159
  3All other mention of eye defects.

  4Provisional.

  5Increased coverage reflects improved record keeping.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve the take up of grants and other incentives for research and development by small and medium enterprises.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 June 1993 ]: All industrial research and development support schemes administered by my Department are dealt with by one unit, making it easy for companies of all sizes to deal with appropriate officials who are aware of the full range of support and will signpost companies to the most appropriate form of assistance.

  My Department carries out a wide range of promotional activities, often working closely with local enterprise companies and other business intermediaries such as management consultants, accountants, and small business advisers in banks to encourage small and medium sized companies in Scotland to take up the support available for research and development both from the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission.

  Through the media of seminars, workshops and advice days, information and services are provided which identify opportunities to participate in United Kingdom and EC research and development programmes. Details on calls for proposals and deadlines are disseminated throughout Scotland by the publication of Industry Department's Technology Bulletin. Advice, guidance and assistance is also given to companies regarding the completion and submission of applications.

  In addition my officials work closely with the Scotland and Northern England relay centre which specialises in promoting EC research and development initiatives. The relay centre plays a central role in ensuring that the results emanating from the EC's framework research and development programme are used effectively, particularly by small and medium enterprises.

  Innovation Support
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve the ease of access to innovation support programmes by small and medium sized enterprises.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: The publicity activities of my Department supplement the efforts of the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise networks to encourage small and medium sized enterprises to apply new technology and to take advantage of support for innovation.

  To improve further the supply of information for industry, Scottish Enterprise, in partnership with other bodies, is currently establishing a network of local business shops throughout Scotland.

  In addition, the Government are reviewing the scope for transferring from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Scottish Office responsibility for a range of schemes in Scotland for encouraging industrial innovation and technology transfer. The object of the review will be to
  160
  bring about transfer of responsibility wherever practicable, again with the aim of improving responsiveness to local needs.

  Housing (Elderly People)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase housing facilities for the elderly to enable the implementation of community care programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1993 ]: Housing for the elderly is provided by public sector landlords, housing associations and the private sector. Guidelines on housing for the elderly were published in 1991 and Scottish Homes published its discussion paper on housing for the elderly in May.

  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, including projects relating to the elderly.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of preparing and publishing the applications for trust status in Lothian health board hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 June 1993]: As in previous years separate funds had been set aside to assist hospitals who wish to consider and prepare applications for NHS trust status. The costs of preparing and publishing applications by Lothian hospitals are not yet available but as part of the public consultation process the Government attach great importance to copies of all applications being widely available to assist members of the public in their consideration of the proposals.

  Education Authorities
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the education authorities in Scotland with the total number of pupils for which each education authority is responsible.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total number of pupils at September 1992 in education authority nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, or for whom special arrangements are made under section 14 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, is shown for each education authority in Scotland.

  Education Authority

  Number of pupils

  Scotland

  797,978

  Borders

  15,204

  Central

  43,682

  Dumfries and Galloway

  23,425

  Fife

  58,022

  Grampian

  80,943

  Highland

  35,173

  Lothian

  103,688

  Strathclyde

  366,076

  Tayside

  59,168

  Orkney

  3,463

  161

  Education Authority

  Number of pupils

  Shetland

  4,228

  Western Isles

  4,906

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  9,546

  Ayr

  61,108

  Dunbarton

  54,541

  Glasgow

  99,535

  Lanark

  83,256

  Renfrew

  58,090

  Ferries
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions exist on the transfer of ferries constructed with the aid of European funds to private ownership.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contributions made from EC funds to the construction of Caledonian MacBrayne ferries, in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is not readily available in the format requested. The total contribution made from EC funds to the construction of Caledonian MacBrayne ferries during the past 10 years is given in the following table:

  Vessels

  Year of award

  £ EC allocation

  £ Total EC grant paid

  Hebridean Isles

  1984

  2,750,000

  2,200,000

  Loch Striven

  1985

  425,000

  424,610

  Loch Linnhe

  1985

  425,000

  424,703

  Loch Riddon

  1987

  425,000

  425,000

  Loch Ranza

  1986

  425,000

  425,000

  Isle of Mull

  1987

  3,216,000

  3,216,000

  Lord of the Isles

  1989

  2,545,600

  2,545,600

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, together with the respective dates, those meetings of the EC Council of Ministers which were attended by Ministers in his Department in the latest 12 months.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland attended a special joint meeting of Environment and Transport Ministers on 25 January 1993.

  My hon. Friend, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, led for the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Councils on 19 October 1992 and 23 November 1992 and shared the lead for the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Council on 19 December 1992. He also attended the Agriculture Council on 26 October 1992 and the Fisheries Council on 18 March 1993.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Education for Scotland attended the Education Council on 27 November 1992.

  On the occasions where Scottish Office Ministers do not personally attend they are represented at all EC Council meetings by senior officials or by their colleagues in the United Kingdom Government.
  162

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the locations of Forestry Commission land(a) currently being developed for leisure activities and (b) those areas developed for leisure activities in each of the last five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 June 1993]: The Forestry Commission is preparing a list of its recreation facilities and I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a copy as soon as possible and for further copies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of Forestry Commission interpretation centres and their location.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 June 1993]: The Forestry Commission has 29 interpretation centres, which are at the listed locations.

  England

  Alice Holt Forest, Hampshire

  Bedgebury Pinetum, Sussex

  Border Forest Park, Northumberland

  Cannock Forest, Staffordshire

  Delamere Forest, Cheshire

  Grizedale Forest Park, Cumbria

  Hamsterley Forest, Durham

  Neroche Forest (Offwell Centre), Devon

  North Riding Forest Park, North Yorkshire

  Thetford Forest Park, Suffolk

  Westonbirt Arboretum, Gloucestershire

  Whinlatter Forest Park, Cumbria

  Wyre Forest, Hereford and Worcester

  Scotland

  Bennachie Forest, Grampian

  Farigaig Forest, Highland

  Galloway Forest Park (Clatteringshaws), Dumfries and Galloway

  Galloway Forest Park (Kirroughtree), Dumfries and Galloway

  Galloway Forest Park (Murray Centre), Dumfries and Galloway

  Galloway Forest Park (Stroan Bridge), Dumfries and Galloway

  Glenmore Forest Park, Highland

  Inverliever Forest, Strathclyde

  Portree Wood, Highland

  Queen Elizabeth Forest Park (David Marshall Lodge), Central

  Tay Forest Park, Tayside

  Wales

  Betws y Coed, Gwynedd

  Clocaenog Forest, Ruthin, Clwyd

  Coed Taf, Merthyr Tydfil, Mid Glamorgan

  Coed y Brenin Forest Park, Dolgellau, Gwynedd

  Nant Yr Arian, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made for the involvement of the Ministry of Defence in discussions on the future of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are being kept informed of issues affecting their interests which arise from the work of the Forestry review group, announced by my right hon. Friend on 30 March 1993.
  163

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) the extra expenditure and (b) savings for each year up to 2000 as a result of each of the main measures on disability benefits which he announced on 10 January 1990; and if he will make further projections for (i) extra costs and (ii) savings

  Measure

  1993–94 Cost/saving

  1994–95 Cost/saving

  1995–96 Cost/saving

  2000–01 Cost/saving

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Introduction of disability living allowance

  +230

  +290

  +340

  +490

  Introduction of disability working allowance

  +20

  +50

  +50

  +100

  Abolition of the accrual of new rights to the earnings-related additions to invalidity pension

  -30

  -70

  -120

  -550

  Age related addition on severe disablement allowance

  +50

  +60

  +60

  +70

  Abolition of reduced earnings allowance in the industrial injuries scheme

  -80

  n/a

  n/a

  -160

  +=cost; -=saving.

  Sources:

  1. Government Actuary and Department of Social Security (for disability working allowance).

  2. Estimates for abolition of reduced earnings allowance in the industrial injuries scheme taken from Official Report of 19 January 1990 and converted to 1992–93 prices.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are at 1992–93 prices.

  2. Estimates take account of changes to income related benefit entitlement, except for disability working allowance which are gross costs.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million, but are not accurate to that degree. Estimates for 2000–01 are subject to a considerable degree of uncertainty.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that local authorities are meeting the requirement to process housing benefit claims within 14 days.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 19 January, at column 211. Full statutory responsibility for the administration of the housing benefit scheme rests with local authorities. They are required to ensure that the system is working effectively and in accordance with the rules of the benefit scheme. Regulations prescribe that claims should be processed within 14 days of receipt of all the necessary information, or as soon as possible thereafter. Where through no fault of the applicant, a claim to rent allowance cannot be settled within 14 days, interim payments should be made.

  We recognise the continuing concerns about some authorities' performance in this area, and the Department plans shortly to issue strengthened guidance reminding all authorities of their legal duties to make interim payments.

  My reply to my hon. Friend on 2 March 1993 at column 112 referred to the housing benefit performance measures, prepared by the Audit Commission, under the citizens
  164
  for each of these measures between the years 2000 and 2025 where these can be estimated in broad orders of magnitude.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the projected costs/savings of each of the main measures was announced by the former Secretary of State on 10 January 1990 at column 482. The table estimates in broad orders of magnitude these costs/savings for 1993–94 to 1995–96 and the likely effect for 2000–01 at the latest price base. It is not possible to provide estimates in the longer term since the costs and savings depend on a large number of factors which cannot be accurately forecast.

  charter initiative within local government. Publication of the results, both locally and nationally, will ensure that authorities monitor more closely how they meet the 14-day requirements.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has on the extent to which local authorities are meeting the 14–day target for housing benefit claims; if he will list those authorities which did not meet the target for the two most recent years where figures are available; and how many days it took those authorities to process such claims.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 10 June 1993]: The available information has been placed in the Library. Information on the actual number of days that authorities take to process benefit claims is not available.

  Figures reported by many authorities indicate how well they administer housing benefit. Regulations provide that authorities should process claims within 14 days of all the necessary information becoming available. In 1991–92, overall figures, based on the 345 authorities supplying data, indicated that around 70 per cent. of authorities achieve, or exceed, the national average of 75 per cent. for the processing of housing benefit claims within 14 days of

  165
  all relevant information becoming available. Some 40 per cent. of responding authorities process 90 per cent. or more of claims within 14 days.

  Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System Statistical Return (1991–92).

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women have applied for disabled living allowance or the equivalent benefit, in each of the last three years; and what percentage of men and women have been granted it (i) for life and (ii) for specified periods of time.

  Mr. Scott
  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.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the relevant extracts from leaflets available to the general public in which advance notice has been given of the Government's intention to make invalidity benefit subject to income tax.

  Mr. Scott
  Reference to the intention to extend taxation to invalidity benefit has been included in the Department's leaflet about the benefit (NI 16A) since April 1983. The current wording is as follows:"Invalidity Benefit is not taxable, even when you continue to get it after 65 (men) or 60 (women). It is planned to tax it some time in the future, but a date hasn't yet been set".

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action has been undertaken by his Department as a result of the recommendations on the reform of the social fund by the Social Security Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Scott
  We have taken account of these recommendations in making recent operational improvements to the social fund. n particular; this year's increase in the budget to £346 million (52 per cent. higher than in April 1991); the introduction of the social fund computer system which will improve the consistency, speed and quality of decision making; revised training; and improved forms and letters.

  We will continue to take account of the findings of this and other reports, as well as our own close monitoring, as we consider any further improvements to the operation of the fund.

  Quarry House
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the budget for decoration and art work for Quarry house in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Hague
  It is not possible to put a precise figure on the budget for decoration and artwork for Quarry house in 1991–92 and 1992–93 because the majority of work was covered by the main building contract.
  166

  Terminal Illness
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what benefits are currently available to terminally ill people in hospices or nursing homes;

  (2) what was the value of each benefit available to terminally ill people in hospices or nursing homes in each of the last 10 years; and how many people claimed each of those benefits in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Burt
  A wide range of benefits is available to terminally ill people in hospices or nursing homes, provided they meet the conditions of entitlement. Special higher levels of income support are available to people who were in residential care and nursing homes, including hospices which make a charge, at 31 March 1993. The maximum level which applies for such people who are terminally ill in nursing homes is currently £280 a week (£315 in London) plus personal expenses of £12·65. For details of this I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 18 January at columns 106–107. The income support entitlement of people entering homes since 1 April 1993 includes a residential allowance of £45 (£50 in London).

  Information about the value and the numbers of recipients of each benefit is not available in the form requested.

  Full information about eligibility to benefits is made widely available by the Benefits Agency in a variety of forms including leaflets and various confidential free telephone advice lines.

  Maternity Pay
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department will announce the proposed changes to statutory maternity pay required by the EC directive on the protection of pregnant women at work.

  Mr. Scott
  We are considering the directive's implications for statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance and will make an announcement when this work has been completed.

  Resettlement Unit Advisory Steering Group
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the resettlement unit advisory steering group last met; and when the group is next expected to meet.

  Mr. Hague
  The management of the Resettlement Agency is a matter for Mr. Tony Ward, the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. T. Ward to Mr. Nick Raynsford, dated 21 June 1993:
  As the Resettlement Agency is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him, about the Resettlement Unit Advisory Steering Group, when it last met, and when the group is next expected to meet. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Resettlement Unit Advisory Steering Group last met on 4 April 1990. Since then, much headway has been made by the Agency, in taking forward Government policy to

  167
  disengage from the direct revision of facilities for single homeless people with an unsettled way of life. Ten units which provided 667 beds have been either replaced or sold by way of grant aid to voluntary organisations, and 852 new beds have been created to replace them. In this way, the Agency has made rapid advances and has not had cause to seek the advice
  168
  of the Advisory Steering Group since 1990. In view of the progress that has been made, it is, in my opinion, most unlikely that I will need to seek its help in future.
  I enclose a copy of my latest annual report from which you will see details of the Agency's performance.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Overseas Aid
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to meet the call of the UN development programme, in its latest report, for new forms of international co-operation to focus overseas aid on the needs of people rather than on the preferences of governments.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we welcome the emphasis in the UNDP's human development report on the needs of poor people. Many of the approaches to development in the report are already a part of our aid policy.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that over-centralisation of aid is not effective in development terms and that NGOs have a vital role to play in reaching the people concerned? Has she been able to study the success of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, for example, which has demonstrated that credit for the landless poor not only creates business and jobs but can yield a loan repayment of 95 per cent? What priority is the Minister able to give to supporting NGOs in the developing world as well as British NGOs?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that supplementary question. I fully agree that over-centralisation of aid control and development in recipient countries is not the most effective way of helping in certain circumstances. There are very many projects which should be developed, as I would term it, from the bottom up —from the village upwards. The noble Lord mentioned the Grameen Bank, which is probably one of the most successful of any savings and financing organisations that we have found anywhere in the world. We hope that the Grameen Bank will extend its work further afield. I recently had the pleasure of seeing Professor Yunuf and discussing these detailed matters with him. We shall continue to increase our help fir the NGOs as it has been increased over each of the past five years. That applies not just to British NGOs, but also to NGOs in the countries concerned.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that she is aware that the ODA funds many NGOs? I speak as chairman of Plan International UK, and I intend to go to see the project in Indonesia. Will she confirm that that is just one of many NGO projects funded through the ODA in the poorest parts of the third world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, l am very glad to welcome the work of my noble friend's NGO, Plan International UK. It is one of more than 150 British NGOs working overseas. The amount of money that we spend through the British NGOs has more than doubled since 1989-90. I am glad to say that the increase this year on last year through our joint funding scheme, which gives such good value for money, is 26 per cent. I am delighted that the volunteer-sending agencies are also increasing their work and that, with that, we are able to increase our funding of them.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while over-centralisation in these matters should be avoided, co-ordination is often an essential element, and that in those cases where co-ordination is necessary it is best done by the government of the country in question, and should that not be possible, by an NGO rather than by, say, the European Community?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there needs to be co-ordination, but the way to get best value for money is to co-ordinate British NGOs, which are often partnered with local NGOs in developing countries, with someone in the government of the country concerned and with the other donors working on the project. That is why I always encourage our British high commissioners and ambassadors to co-ordinate project work—and not only NGO project work—so that there is no overlap and so that the recipients, as well as the British taxpayers, get the best possible value for money.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble friend please tell us what "NGO" stands for?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships. It stands for "nongovernmental organisation".
Lord Ennals: My Lords. may I ask the Minister two linked questions about Bangladesh? First, what immediate assistance is her department giving to help with the very drastic flood problems in Bangladesh at the moment? Secondly, what are the Government doing in relation to the long-term flood control project which has been under discussion for several years?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we received a report from the department of humanitarian affairs at the UN in Geneva only yesterday about the floods in the Sylhet region of Bangladesh. The Government of Bangladesh have not requested outside help, but we have already offered. My aid management office in Dhaka, together with the local NGOs, is investigating what might be done. At present, the people in Sylhet are coping remarkably well. Sadly, because Bangladesh has so many disasters, it has the capacity for coping in such periods. We are fully ready to help and we shall do so if we can best fit in with the government's plans. As far as the Bangladesh flood action plan is concerned, together with other multilateral donors, the British Government have contributed to a number of studies

227
and we shall continue to help. But the problem of the Ganges delta will not be solved even inside 10 years. We all have to go on working at it.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that for many years we have been conforming to one of the most important principles of the United Nations development programme by the extent to which our bilateral aid has been concentrated on the poorest countries, as defined by the UN, and, as far as we can ensure it, on the poorest groups within those countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he said. Over 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid is spent in the poorest countries. We have received special praise for the poverty focus and effectiveness of our aid programme within those poor countries. What is most important of all is that we have now persuaded many other donor partners that they should also concentrate their development aid on poverty reduction, and make it poverty reduction which is people oriented; that is to say, to ensure that there are better safety nets for those who are really in trouble and also good opportunities for growth and development among those groups which, even in poor countries, can begin to manufacture and trade for themselves.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am greatly heartened by the Minister's commitment to NGOs in this country and overseas. However, does she agree that the 7.2 billion US dollars in grants channelled through NGOs worldwide represent only 13 per cent. of official aid and 2.5 per cent. of total resource flows to developing countries? What will she, and her colleagues in the EC and elsewhere, be able to do significantly to increase that proportion?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, we have an overall plan of action of which poverty reduction and assistance to help the poor get out of their poverty is a key priority. With the UN agencies and other multilateral donors, most particularly within the EC, we have sought to get others similarly to focus, because, whereas we may spend 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid on the poorest countries, others have not done as well as that. For whatever reasons, they have decided to spend their aid in other ways. It was during the UK presidency of the EC that I persuaded my colleagues that we should have a declaration on development policy and co-operation in the run up to the year 2000. At our meeting last May, we expressed our intention of adopting the operational conclusions for a coordinated strategy on poverty reduction; that means all working in the same direction.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what is the Government's policy towards incompetent governments who spend their money on armaments rather than on food for their people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is right to draw attention to that
228
point. We have repeatedly told governments who do not spend their own resources on health and education but on unnecessary military equipment that that policy should not be pursued, but there are many reasons why a country wishes to defend itself. We cannot deny a sovereign government the right to self defence. What we can do is point out to them where their military expenditure is, in the eyes of all donors, excessive, and where they can so adapt their budget to look after their people. That is what we seek to do through institution building with many of the countries to which we are donors.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may join others in congratulating my noble friend on her major contribution to the developing world and the way that the aid programme is organised from this country. What co-operation is she receiving from other governments, as in the case of Bangladesh, where I believe it has been proved several times that the cause of the delta silting up is the chopping down of vast forest lands in Tibet and Northern China? However much money is poured into that area—I accept that it is needed for emergencies—until China's co-operation in solving the problem is gained, the Bangladesh situation will not be cured.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her first comment. Through our global environmental work, we are seeking to persuade all countries to look further than at their own forests and to consider the effects of their forest cutting.

NHS Healthcare: Availability
2.47 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the increasing cost of the National Health Service due to expensive new treatments and equipment they will limit its universal availability and introduce some insurance system to meet the costs of high-tech healthcare.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, no.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not very helpful reply. Does she accept that there is a continuing problem? Although my suggestions may be completely unacceptable, what are the Government going to do about it? She will realise, as does the whole House, that the finances for the NHS are inadequate.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the NHS has never had so much money. We increase the amount of money available to it year on year. The Government are clear: we stick by our manifesto commitment that need and not ability to pay is, and will remain, the basis upon which care is offered to all by the NHS.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us will thoroughly endorse her excellent negative Answer to this foolish Question?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on rejecting the policy of the Liberal Democrat Party. Does she agree that universal availability has been one of the fundamental concepts of our NHS which is admired throughout the world? We should at all times be prepared to see that those in this country who suffer from pain, whether they are rich, poor, have money or none, will have the best that our medical services can provide. We shall have no truck with the policy of the Liberal Democrat Party.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, on this occasion I am happy to agree with the noble Lord.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that this is not Liberal Democrat Party policy. However, it is a real question and the Minister knows it. We cannot spend money on all the new developments in medicine and on expensive transplants while at the same time doing all the necessary but duller jobs. I do not agree with the last part of the Question, but does the Minister agree that it is valid and requires an answer?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I recognise what the noble Baroness is saying. It is up to health authorities and GP fund-holders, who are purchasers of the services, to set their priorities in the light of local needs. We are encouraging those in the National Health Service to face up to the issue and to set their priorities rightly and properly in accordance with what they know their population needs.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that an alternative answer to the noble Viscount's Question would be to put more resources into complementary medicine in terms of research and development since this is increasingly showing itself to be both low-tech and effective?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Earl may be aware that the department is planning to fund a project to be carried out by the medical research unit in Sheffield. It will look at the impact of complementary therapies in particular on prescribing patterns, the cost of drugs and hospital referral practices, because we recognise that this is another arm of healthcare which needs to be explored.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, had asked the Question in the form, "Would Her Majesty's Government consider whether it would be better that all of us should be fairly well, or that some of us should be extremely well and others of us should be dead?", her Answer might have been different and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter might have thought it a less foolish Question?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I find that a difficult question to answer at the moment and I shall study Hansard with great care.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister really believe that the National Health Service is providing the service that it ought? Does she appreciate the time that it takes even to see a consultant when one is ill and cannot work? I am worried by the fact that she does not accept that something should be done.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am of the firm conviction that the National Health Service is the best in the world. I recognise that the stresses and strains on it are great, but it is a high priority for this Government, as our election manifesto pledges illustrate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the policy suggestion from the Liberal Democrat Benches is fundamentally flawed, as is the underlying argument; namely, that all hi-tech medicine is more expensive? Is it not right that many hi-tech medicines and facilities in the NHS save money; for instance, ultrasound, modern surgery methods, keyhole surgery and laser surgery?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Another example of the way in which modern pharmacology has been able to reduce costs is in the powerful anti-ulcer drugs, which avoid the need for major stomach surgery and the complications of such surgery. My noble friend is right but, nevertheless, we also place emphasis on new technology. In 1979 only three heart transplants were performed in this country, but in 1991 there were 280. That is an enormous investment in new technology.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords. will the Minister advise me how many million pounds have been set aside for payment to directors of hospital trusts?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have that figure with me but I shall let the noble Lord know in due course.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of her supporters on this side has gone to the National Health Service in his local area because it is better than the private service which is on offer, that he is completely and utterly satisfied with what has happened and that he is reasonably healthy? Perhaps the fact that he is reasonably healthy is not to the pleasure of my noble friend on the Front Bench. Is my noble friend also aware that since 1979 we have considerably increased the number of doctors, nurses and health service workers, and can she say when it will end?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I reinforce my belief that the National Health Service is the best in the world. It is right that people who want private medicine should have the choice to use it. However, the majority of people in this country have confidence in the National Health Service and use it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that Members on these Benches endorse entirely her first monosyllabic Answer?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

Harrier GR-7: Cannon
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they still intend to replace the 30 millimetre Aden Cannon with the 25 millimetre Aden Cannon on the Harrier GR-7.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we intend to fit the 25 millimetre Aden Cannon on the Harrier GR-7. The 30 millimetre gun used on the earlier Sea Harrier and the Harrier GR-3 has proved not to be an acceptable option for the GR-7 since it does not meet the performance requirements for this aircraft.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that blindingly technological Answer. But is he aware that the ammunition for the 30 millimetre Aden Cannon is available everywhere and consequently not only easier but cheaper to obtain; and that although the ammunition for the 25 millimetre cannon may be the ammunition for the future it is not yet easily obtainable? Is he further aware that the present 30 millimetre Aden Cannon has worked perfectly satisfactorily for the past five years and that the 25 millimetre Aden Cannon is currently subject to malfunction?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, very substantial modifications would be needed if the GR-7 were to be fitted with the 30 millimetre cannon. Equally, the capabilities of the 30 millimetre cannon are inadequate for the requirement and the 25 millimetre cannon would be satisfactory for the GR-7 bearing. I confirm that there have been reliability difficulties with the introduction of the 25 millimetre gun.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister comment on his noble friend's allegation that the 25 millimetre cannon has been subject to malfunction? Has the cannon been properly tested? Will there be any undesirable effects on the pilot of the aircraft if the cannon backfires? Will he also enlighten me and the House as to the origin of the Aden Cannon? Is it made in Aden? Why is it called "Aden"? Is it purchased from abroad or is it of British manufacture? Perhaps the noble Viscount will help the House.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I always try to help your Lordships in these matters, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I can confirm that there have been reliability problems over the introduction of the cannon. I can also confirm that the cannon is of British manufacture and was let to a British manufacturer for development and assembly. When
232
the cannon has been fully tried and introduced we expect that it will meet the requirements specified for it.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Harrier GR-7s which are operating out of Turkey over Northern Iraq in support of the United Nations no-fly zone are fully able to meet that commitment?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for asking that question. As he would expect, so far all reports have been that the aircraft and the men of his service have performed up to the highest standards expected of the Royal Air Force.

Trans-European Network Proposal
3 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will include the ports of Sheerness and Ramsgate in their proposals for the European Community's trans-European network maps.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is a rather disappointing Answer? Will he not reconsider the issue on the basis that the inclusion of Ramsgate and Sheerness in the trans-European network programme would be an extremely valuable boost to employment in an area along the north Kent corridor which is suffering a good deal, and would also help to avoid the danger of congestion throughout the county of Kent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question of development in that area is separate from the trans-European network. That is an idea put forward in the Commission and is being discussed at Council level to try to iron out the bottlenecks of traffic throughout Europe.
Ramsgate and Sheerness are not specifically on a trans-European network which is why they have been excluded from the discussions so far with regard to ports. However, I understand the point about improving communications and the environment locally. That is why the Government are contributing so handsomely to the Thanet Way, which is costing more than £100 million.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that government Ministers today seem to be overworking themselves in their initial responses? Will the Minister indicate to the House what integration of intermodal transportation measures are currently being promoted by the Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at the transport council on 7th and 8th June a political agreement was reached on three trans-European networks: first, combined transport on rail; secondly, road; and

233
thirdly, inland waterways. Therefore, there has been political agreement and the matter is now with the European Parliament.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in view of the business still to come, is Maastricht on that map?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, the town of Maastricht is not on the map but in the Maastricht Treaty there is reference to trans-European networks.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, Maastricht will be on the map this afternoon. Is the noble Earl aware that there is considerable anxiety about the intrusion of Europe into our transportation networks? Is he aware also that many people are very worried that our planning regulations and systems could be undermined by the institutions of the EC? Will he confirm that where the Community insists on road networks in this country, it will not be able to insist that they are paid for by the British taxpayer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord. I believe that he has misunderstood the purpose of the programme which comprises guidelines. It is far national governments to decide what exactly should be the infrastructure within their countries. The noble Lord will be one of the first to agree that within Europe we need good communications for freight and for our goods so that they can move speedily from all parts of this country to their destination in Europe.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the last thing that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, wants is good communications with Europe?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that may be so. However, I know from previous debates that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is very keen that we should export British goods quickly and efficiently.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister accept from this side of the House our congratulations to the European Community transport Ministers on their decision to take real action in relation to road haulage, which has been held up over many years now? That is a marked act of advance on the part of transport Ministers and they need to be congratulated from time to time.
The Earl of Caithness: I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that I am all for good communications with Europe and I do not wish to see them obstructed by a bureaucratic set-up such as is envisaged by the Maastricht Treaty?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is why the noble Lord has the benefit of subsidiarity.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one
234
hour and that during that adjournment the Second Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill will be taken, followed by three Motions for approval concerning criminal justice and drug trafficking.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, 1 beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause I [Treaty on European Union]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Lord Jay Lord Jay moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("(k)") insert ("The Preamble (except the words "RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries")").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 53 to 60 and 396A.
These amendments concern the crucial question of citizenship of the Union which is to be imposed upon every British citizen whether he or she likes it or not. It is perhaps worth considering the words by which that citizenship is established. Part 2, Article 8 of the treaty states:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union… Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall he subject to the duties imposed thereby".
The first point that I should like to make on citizenship is that the establishment of citizenship implies the establishment of a state rather than an institution which is only half a state. I believe that I am right to say—and this would appeal to the reasonable man—that you cannot be a citizen of anything other than a state. You can be a member of the BBC, the Tory Party, a quango or Lloyd's of London, but you cannot be a citizen of any of those and many other organisations. Therefore, whether you like it or not, it is of some importance that we are establishing a new state and the plain intention of the treaty is to achieve by the next step, as some of us have argued already, a European superstate.
The next point that I should like to make on this issue is that it will be noticed from what I have read that the treaty confers on every citizen not only rights of citizenship but also duties. Many people have the impression that the treaty confers only rights, and they naturally believe that there can be nothing wrong with that. Surely it is quite a different issue when duties which people at present do not know the nature of and about which they have not been asked are imposed upon them in that way by law.
On Second Reading some of us asked the Government whether they would specify what are those duties. I think that Parliament should at least be

235
informed as to the nature of the duties that are being conferred on every British citizen. When one looks at the treaty to seek guidance, it is rather remarkable to note that Article 8A says:
"Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely",
and so on. Article 8 also recites rights which are conferred, as do the two following articles.
Therefore, the treaty first says that rights and duties will be imposed on us, and it then tells us at some considerable length what are those rights; but nowhere, so far as I have been able to discover, does it tell us what are the duties thereby imposed. It is possible that they are specified in some other title, article, chapter, annex, protocol or even declaration of the treaty. However, if that is so, many of us would be glad if the Government told us exactly where they are specified.
It has been a remarkable feature of the whole of the controversy, right back to the time of the European Communities Act 1972, that when we are passing such Acts we are told that there really is not very much in them and that it will all turn out all right. In the case of the 1972 Act, we were told that we could all rest on the Luxembourg compromise and that there were no objectionable features. But, as the years move on, we are told, "You signed the treaty and passed the Act, so now you are bound by those legal restrictions". Indeed, with the second Act—namely, the Single European Act—we were all advised that it was nothing but a means for a wider economic trading market in Western Europe and that there was very little in the way of legal restrictions involved. But as soon as it was passed, it emerged that that Act, coupled with the original European Communities Act, meant that the British Government were involved in all sorts of obligations.
There was a time earlier this year when some Members of this Chamber, including, at one time, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, rather implied that there was really very little in the Bill or the treaty which we did not accept at the time of the Single European Act. But, if that is so and it does not add anything, it seems rather extraordinary that it is necessary to have the vast operation of the Bill and of the treaty. However, the fact is that it is adding a great deal. One of the additions is the imposition of the duties of citizenship which, so far, have not been specified.
It would have been a very much better arrangement if we could have allowed a free choice to the British citizen as to whether or not he accepted those additional rights and duties combined. There are many people in the country who would gladly have done so, whereas others would have preferred not to do so. Faced as we are with the Government who are enthusiastic about the choice of the citizen and who are always telling us that we should give more choice to the individual, I should have thought that that was a powerful argument.
Some of us would have preferred to table an amendment at this stage granting the individual British subject the opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" to the acceptance of those additional rights and duties.
236
However, I understand that that would be out of order under the provisions of the Bill. The Government would no doubt argue that it is impossible because we cannot insert into the treaty anything which is not already there. Nevertheless, that does not prevent us from arguing that it ought to have been done. It seems to me that there is a strong case for giving a free citizen's choice on such a crucial issue.
The Government are keen on schools opting out of local authority control, hospitals opting out of full membership of the health service and ordinary individuals opting out, for example, of the state earnings related pension; and, indeed, on the whole concept of the Citizen's Charter which is designed to give greater choice to the citizen. I should have preferred that such a choice could have been given so that those who wish to remain citizens would be able to do so, and those who did not would be able to opt in the other direction. I hope that that will be one of the themes that we shall discuss in this afternoon's debate. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Before he spoke, I had no idea what the noble Lord. Lord Jay, would say in support of this rather peculiar amendment. I am just wondering whether he remembers 1948, when Mr. Attlee's Government (of which the noble Lord was a noble and distinguished supporter) passed the British Nationality Act? Am I right in thinking—perhaps my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will confirm—that that provided a Commonwealth citizenship? No one pretended that that created a state called "the Commonwealth"; indeed, no one has ever thought so since that time.
As for the alleged duties upon which the second half of the noble Lord's argument was based, surely the fact is that they are reciprocal to the rights. A citizen of the Community is entitled to certain rights—for example, rights of establishment or rights of passage of the frontiers without a pièce d'identité of any size, except simply to establish his identity.
As I said, the rights are reciprocal. If you have a right to set up business in this country you have to perform the same duties as a British subject. I do not see what else is left of the noble Lord's argument; indeed, it has gone to nothing. I just wonder whether my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, with his far greater knowledge in such matters, will confirm what I said.
The Earl of Onslow: I seem to remember my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham arguing with the "patrialic" clauses of the Immigration Act 1971 when I was a small fledging Member of this Chamber to try to get out of the pickle in which the Immigration Act 1948 had landed us. I must admit that his legal skills have not forsaken him.
I also seem to remember that there is a case in British history when Palmerston went to the other place and said, civic Britannicus sum. Some appalling individual had been arrested by the Greek authorities for some thievery and knavery. His name, as my noble

237
and learned friend did not need to remind me, was Don Pacifico. The other place went into a great roar of British imperial grandeur. I believe I am right in saying—although I cannot remember the name of the Roman governor involved—that when St. Paul was arrested he pleaded, civis Romanus sum.
There is something special about citizenship. I do not want to be a citizen of Tuscany, Burgundy, the Brabant or anywhere else; I only want to be a subject of Her Majesty. Indeed, I am only a subject of Her Majesty and that is how it should be. I do not want imposed upon me any more rights or duties. When my noble friend on the Front Bench in the previous debates said that the duties were basically a load of rubbish—I believe that that was what she said, although I may be paraphrasing somewhat; but that was the essence of what she said—I tried to move an amendment to this treaty which sought to remove the word "duties" arid insert the phrase "hey diddle diddle" because my noble friend had said that "duties" were the equivalent of "hey diddle diddle". People do not want this concept of citizenship. They do not want to be citizens of anything other than the United Kingdom. They do not want the duties that I have mentioned, which are non-existent, and they do not want the rights either because they are inchoate.
This measure is a mistake, but I fear that it will probably be driven through by the remorseless urge of the Foreign Office and the beautifully argued briefs of my noble friend on the Front Bench. My noble friend is making a grave error if she fails to understand that ordinary people do not want the citizenship we are discussing. My noble friend Lord Middleton snorts when I refer to ordinary people. It may be possible that he knows more about ordinary people than I. That may be possible but it is unlikely. I believe that people do not want to be citizens of anything other than the United Kingdom. They want to be loyal subjects of the Crown.
Baroness Elles: I am sorry to hear that my noble friend Lord Onslow does not want to be a European citizen. Over the past 20 years we have been given reciprocal rights of citizenship within the European Community in many ways. Members of the Committee will remember that at one time when someone crossed the Channel he had to fill in an immigration card. We no longer have to do that because the right of sovereignty has been ceded through our boundaries being open to all Community nationals. There is no longer exchange control at the frontiers and we do not have to show our passports at the frontiers, except at Dover. When 300 or 400 people emerge from a jumbo jet at Heathrow they no longer have to pass through the immigration control. There are special blue channels for EC nationals. If my noble friend Lord Onslow wishes to queue behind 400 people, he is welcome to do so. However, as EC nationals, we have the right to go through the blue channel I have mentioned.
A similar procedure applies to voting rights. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham pointed out, the British Nationality Act 1948 not only bestowed British Commonwealth citizenship on 600 million people; but it also gave them the right to vote in
238
British general elections provided that they were here on the qualifying date as residents. It did not matter whether they could speak English, or whether they had been in the country for only two minutes, or what nationality they held. Article 8b of the treaty gives reciprocal voting rights only with regard to municipal elections and not at general elections. In this case the rights are less than those that were bestowed by the Labour Government in 1948.
There are 180 countries of the United Nations. We cannot have diplomatic and consular offices in all those countries. It must surely be beneficial for British subjects who have a problem to be able to consuf: the diplomatic or consular services of countries which work with us on a reciprocal basis. I totally reject the amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I cannot say that I share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord opposite for being a subject of Her Majesty. I do not object to that fact as I have become used to it. One takes it for granted. However, it is a little odd in this day and age that one declares oneself to be a subject. However. I must. confess that I have even less enthusiasm for becoming a citizen of the Common Market.
Some Members of the Committee may have forgotten that at the beginning we were assured with absolute good faith that this was just a common market. I remember going to Luxembourg with a group of parliamentary candidates back in the 1950s with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. We went to study the European Coal and Steel Community. which was a precursor of the European Common Market. I was rather horrified with that development. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on the other hand was extremely enthusiastic. Our different positions have remained fixed ever since. I remain horrified with the development and she remains enthusiastic.
Why does this difference of attitude occur? Is it somehow wrong that we should seek to be citizens of a common market? I think it is. I am not a great nationalist but I believe that the truth of the matter is that nationalism is a strong force in the world of today. If one tries to destroy it, one will create something which perhaps one cannot handle. Something of that kind has been happening in Bosnia where nationalism has reasserted itself over an imposed federation. We are asked to accept by the back door—and this is what the amendment seeks to get rid of—that we shall all become citizens of a wider Europe. I feel no kind of loyalty to the European Common Market either in its present form, still less in the federal form which many Members of the Committee nowadays openly say is their objective. That is what they want. I do not want it. I do not know whether the Committee looks forward to being part of a federation of Europe and having Parliament itself reduced to the level of a minor county.
Perhaps we will take our courage in our hands and put this issue to the people. A later amendment seeks to give the people the opportunity to say whether they want to become citizens of Europe. 1 am no great friend of referendums as such, but I believe that a constitutional issue is the only occasion on which it is

239
reasonable to ask the people as a whole to make a decision. When we are discussing an issue of constitutional change, there is a case for a referendum. However, 1 must not stray on to that matter at the moment.
I shall try to confine my remarks to the amendment which is solely concerned with the question of whether we should or should not become citizens of the European Community, or Common Market, or whatever one wishes to call this thing we have created. I personally take the view that there is a great difference between a state and a nation. I think it reasonable that states can get together and assume a common nationality, as in the case of the United States. However, in the latter case that was achieved with great difficulty and, incidentally, after a civil war had occurred. America has succeeded in creating a genuine United States of America.
However, to suggest that it is possible to create a federation composed of a group of nations that have such varied histories is a different kettle of fish altogether. As a socialist I wish we had a world loyalty. However, if I ever had a loyalty it was to the Commonwealth and to EFTA. That seemed to me an ideal set-up at the time. It is a pity that we lost it in favour of the rather harsh proposition which we are required to assent to today. The Commonwealth and EFTA together have the advantage of being multiracial. The Commonwealth particularly is a multiracial organisation. It does not consist of nations trying to compete against each other. The Commonwealth consists of first, second and third grade countries which would have combined together better than the federation to which we are asked to give our signature.
I believe I have made it clear that if my noble friend should decide to pursue his amendment to a Division, I shall find myself in the Lobby by his side. I believe that I should be right to do so. I also believe that a number of Members of the Committee will take the same view on the issue. We may not have other views in common, but we are not ready to become citizens of a European superstate. That is what we are asked to accept. This is the beginning of it. I believe that my noble friend Lord Jay is right to try to get that element out of the Bill this afternoon.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Nero may have fiddled while Rome burned—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: He did not, actually.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Whatever Nero did, he did not take two years about it.
I did not speak in the Second Reading debate. I have spoken often enough over the years about our membership of the European Community. I believe that in this case the amendment is without merit. It was clear from the Second Reading debate that there is a great deal of confusion as to what is meant by federation. I accept the concept of European union as set out in the Solemn Declaration on European Union
240
signed in Stuttgart on 19th June 1983 by my noble friend Lady Thatcher and in the Single European Act. I accept the views which were expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, on the different meanings of European union. I do not believe that we need to have a sterile debate about that.
Right from the outset my noble friend Lord Onslow misconstrued the difference between a subject and a citizen. I have always thought that the position was very well put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, when he said that he was a Scot by nationality, a British subject and a European citizen by conviction. We should not allow ourselves to become muddled.
We ought to accept that within Europe there is total misunderstanding and utter dismay at the way in which the British Parliament is behaving. While there are high unemployment, social unrest and all the other problems that we ought to be discussing, it is unbelievable that we should spend so much time on this matter. We can accept the treaty or we can reject it. We cannot amend it. Let us get on with the action as fast as we can.
Lord Tebbit: Perhaps I may counsel the Committee in considering this amendment, and many others, to read and reread the Second Reading speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Within that speech there is a great deal of wisdom, for my noble and learned friend set out the dictum that there is nothing new in this treaty of union which was not foreshadowed in the Treaty of Rome, and therefore this treaty of union is not a constitutional treaty. He implied that all the constitutional issues had been dealt with in 1972 in the treaty of accession and therefore endorsed in the 1975 referendum.
I put it to the Committee that there is no mention in the 1972 treaty of accession of the concept of citizenship of the union. We should be very careful about the way in which it is now proposed to amend the Treaty of Rome, for most of the treaty of union concerns amendment of the Treaty of Rome. Let me say in parenthesis that as one reads the Treaty of Maastricht (the union treaty) one sees that most references to this treaty are not references to Maastricht but to the Treaty of Rome. In this particular case, in the matters relating to citizenship we see a new peg being inserted into the Treaty of Rome. It is a peg called citizenship.
As one of those who campaigned for our membership of the European Community I do not recollect that I was campaigning to become a citizen of the union. I do not believe that that proposition was ever debated in those days. Therefore, I differ from my noble friend Lord Rippon, who believes that it should be brushed aside as if of no matter: it is only a matter of citizenship; it is a triviality and we should not detain ourselves with such minor matters. These are the pegs which are being put into the treaty, and this is one of the most important pegs.
At present only the prospect of rights hangs upon that peg: the right to be in a shorter queue at the immigration desk. There are rights which seem to me to be more important than the right to be in a shorter queue at the immigration desk. Are those the rights for

241
which we are being asked to sell so much that we own at present—a right to vote in a European election in Portugal if we happen to be resident there and a right to be in a shorter queue at the immigration desk? That is to reduce serious matters to triviality and farce. As I say, upon that peg there is now hung a notice reading only "privileges". There are no duties. Beware the offer of a free lunch. This citizenship is an offer of a free lunch. I notice that some former European commissioners are smiling at the prospect of a free lunch.
Lord Richard: If the noble Lord berates me, I have to say that I merely mentioned to my noble friend sitting next to me that that was a little rich coming from a former chairman of the Conservative Party.
Lord Tebbit: I suspect that in my years as chairman or the Conservative Party I had rather fewer free lunches than the average commissioner (who is now a pensioner of Brussels) ate during his years as a commissioner. As a former chairman of the Conservative Party I do not have a pension. Perhaps I have touched a slightly raw nerve, and I apologise.
However, my point is a serious one. When this Chamber discusses the next treaty, presumably in 1997 after the inter-governmental conference of 1996, and the continuation of this process, what will it be told then?—"Oh, but your Lordships' House accepted the principle of citizenship, and we all know that with citizenship there come not only privileges but duties, and these are the duties". My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will come forward and say, "Why do your Lordships express such surprise? This was all in train. It was clear that that was what was intended. It is not a constitutional issue to find that European citizens are perhaps bound to perform national service in pursuit of the European foreign and defence policy. These are not constitutional matters. They are not matters to be referred to the people in a referendum. You bought it years ago; you bought it in the treaty on union". I believe that we would be wise to set down a marker and to say, "There shall be no duties attached to citizenship". We would be wiser still if we were to set down a clearer marker and say, "There shall be no citizenship".
If I may say so, the comparison by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham with Commonwealth citizenship is a little wide of the mark. After all, at that time we were not creating the British Empire; we were legislating for the gentle dissolution of the British Empire. On this occasion we are not legislating for the gentle dissolution of a state which had citizens; we are legislating towards the creation of a state which shall have citizens. Indeed, there are noble Lords on the Benches opposite, and perhaps even one or two on the Benches on this side of the Chamber, who think that that is a proper purpose.
Let me again refer to what was happening when we created the concept of Commonwealth citizenship. We were not legislating on a treaty which would create a single currency in the Commonwealth. We were not legislating for a treaty which would impose a restriction of not working for more than 48 hours a week throughout the Commonwealth. We were not
242
creating an organisation in the Commonwealth which would have a monopoly of negotiation of trade throughout the Commonwealth. We were moving in precisely the opposite direction. Therefore I do not believe that my noble and learned friend was quite on the point today.
I have to say, too, that the concept of Scottish nationality which has been adduced not only by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, but also by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—one might call it the Lord Thomson concept—is an interesting one to me. I do not hold that I have English nationality. I do not hold that there are people with Welsh or Scottish nationality in this United Kingdom. My passport does not describe me as an English national. and it is my passport which sets out my citizenship. Therefore I believe that, while rather romantic and perhaps warmly comforting to those of non-English origin within this United Kingdom, the concept is not merely irrelevant, it is technically and legally defective.
I believe that there are strong grounds for considering the concept of citizenship in the same way that one should look at a Trojan horse. No doubt on that memorable occasion there were those present who said, "It's a very nice horse. It is, after all, a gift horse and there are no conditions attached to it. It has been willed to us by those very nice, kind, Greeks'''. When I was a Minister regularly attending the Council, there was a well-established expression, "Beware the Greeks when they come bearing gifts", which was not infrequent. I believe that on this occasion we would do well to be careful of this peculiar gift of citizenship which is said to have no obligations except a barbed hook to lead us onto the next stage.
Lord Parry: Perhaps I may—
Lord Cockfield: Perhaps I may suggest—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): I hate to intervene when two noble Lords are already standing. However, usually only one stands up. I am sure that there will be time for both to speak. To avoid any difficulty, and to save time, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, speaks and then the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Parry: I am grateful to the noble Earl, the Deputy Leader of the House. I believe that that is the true position. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, if he believes that he has been delayed.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, I did not speak in the Second Reading debate. However, unlike him, I did not speak because I was debarred by a rule arranged behind the Throne by the usual channels without any reference to me. I was 20 minutes late in registering my name and therefore could not take pa rt in the debate. The Committee therefore has an additional reason for my speaking now.
I have two points to make which were understated in the main debate. First, if one is born a Welshman—the Committee will have noticed that I was—one

243
will have grown up in a peripheral area of the United Kingdom and Europe, and in a mightily peripheral area of the British Empire. My home is only 20 miles short of the furthermost western point of the United Kingdom. If one has grown up in such an area one realises that certain difficulties arise. They do not arise from nationality, nor from the fact that I was born a Welshman and saw myself as British and European without ever having considered myself within the citizenship of Europe. Living even at that distance from the centre magnified the problems that Wales faced when its basic industry went through a sea-change.
We grew up with great problems of unemployment and other difficulties, some of which are gradually being put right now. Such problems were magnified by our distance from the centre of a country measuring only 400 to 500 miles. Those difficulties would inevitably be exaggerated when we moved into a European Union with the centre of influence even further away.
The second point is more important and has been totally understated in the debate. At this time most countries are moving away from the concept of federation. Some of the greatest federations of states that the world has ever known have collapsed. I believe that even the great federation of the United States of America—I enjoy visiting it and sharing associations—is under strain. It would not surprise me if in the course of my lifetime New York State and the State of California seceded from the United States. That may seem fanciful now. It may seem ridiculous now. But which noble Lords in this Chamber would have forecast the dissolution of the USSR five, six or seven years ago?
I believe, too, that it is absolutely essential to consider the position of people who will be disenfranchised. I refer to those who have not been given the opportunity to decide whether they will surrender their passports and become citizens of a united states. There is a groundswell of opinion in this country which, if we had the courage to tap it, would acknowledge that it was, at the least, agnostic about the need for federation and would prefer to wait. I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to say things which may not be acceptable now, but may be understood in the years to come.
Lord Cockfield: I suggest that my noble friend Lord Tebbit is factually in error in what he says. The Treaty of Rome itself contains the following words:
"RESOLVED … to create an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
Not the states, but "the peoples of Europe". That is the origin of the concept of European citizenship and we can trace it, step by step, from the Treaty of Rome itself, to which we were committed under the Treaty of Accession which was given statutory effect in this country by the European Communities Act 1972. We can trace it right through the Solemn Declaration, signed at Stuttgart in 1983, the Adenino Committee and the Fontainebleau Summit. Those events occurred, I may say, when the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was a member of the British Government and
244
therefore in a position to know precisely what was happening, right through to the Maastricht Treaty itself. It is a concept deeply embedded in the whole history of the Community and the issue is as simple as that.
Lord Moran: I wish to say a word about Amendment No. 54, standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Tonypandy and Lord Monson, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and myself, which is grouped with this amendment. Before that, perhaps I may say that originally grouped with those was Amendment No. 396, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Tonypandy and myself, about the duties which the Queen might be required to assume under the treaty. However, we thought that it would be in the interests of the Committee to discuss the amendment separately because it is so important. Although it is related to the question of citizenship, it deserves to be discussed on its own. Therefore, that amendment will be taken in its place, probably on 30th June.
The question of citizenship enshrined in Article 8, which our amendment suggests should be omitted, is the one provision in the treaty which directly affects individuals. It affects the status of each one of us—every man, woman and child in this country. It is important that we should know what we are talking about. I looked up "citizenship" in the Oxford English Dictionary, but I did not receive much help. It said that it was:
"The position or status of being a citizen, with its rights and privileges".
I then looked up "citizen". There were various definitions, but the relevant one is clear and unambiguous. It says that a citizen is:
"a member of a state, an enfranchised inhabitant of a country, as opposed to an alien".
That is clear enough and it fully accords with the aims of those who are working for a European state.
The process has begun already with our passports. As Members of the Committee know, one can no longer have the blue British passport; if one has the misfortune to find one's passport is full up with visas and one has to get another one, it will be a maroon European Community passport. It will contain the same words, that is: "National Status, British Citizen" but in the blue British passport, those words used to be at the front and in the Community passport they are relegated to the back.
That proposal was originally put forward by the Prime Minister of Spain, Felipe Gonzalez, and endorsed by the Commission. The Commission was careful in what it said; there were some soothing words in its opinion. It said that:
"This would take shape gradually without encroaching in any way on national citizenship, which it would supplement rather than replace. In short, the object would be to encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration".
However, the real object, I believe, is quite different. It was made clear in a speech which Chancellor Kohl made to the Bertelsmann Forum on 3rd April 1992, when he said:
"The European Union treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European union which within a few years will lead to the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of following the last war: the United States of Europe".

245
It is in that context that the proposal for European citizenship should be seen.
What I particularly dislike about it is the element of compulsion. It is laid down simply that any national of a European Community state shall become a European citizen. One is given no option, there is no way in which we can choose not to become one. That seems totally contrary to the line taken on other matters by Her Majesty's Government. For example, the Prime Minister has written of the Citizen's Charter that it:
"is a testament of our belief in people's right to be informed and choose for themselves".
Why should not people be allowed to choose for themselves whether they want to become European citizens?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In following the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I wish to say that I do not think that there is anything wrong, ridiculous or dangerous in aiming at the concept of European citizenship. Very much the reverse, when one considers the fearful and terrible alternatives which have distressed and tortured Europe over a long history.
I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words closely following the intervention of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. In his speech on 7th June this year, he wholly encapsulated for me in about six or eight lines with great force the arguments why the treaty should be signed. In doing so, he reduced the treaty itself to what seems to me to be its proper level of importance. He described it as:
"a useful treaty but of little fundamental consequence. It dots the i's; it crosses the t's".—[Official Report, 7/6/93; col. 597.]
He made it clear that he regarded it as a natural and predictable follow-up of the 1983 Solemn Declaration on European Union. He made it clear that it was the easily foreseeable result of the Single European Act. There is a clear division between him and my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who described it as a treaty which she could never have signed, even though she had been a signatory of the Solemn Declaration on European Union and that she had, with some vigour, got the Single European Act through its various painful stages in another place.
I am left with reflecting on what a strange way we have chosen to behave. We seek to join a club, but some of us lose almost no opportunity to say how foolish and wrongheaded its ideas are, and to make fairly adverse comments upon those who are our fellow members. I wonder—and I question this—over the years when my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister of our country, how many friends she actually succeeded in making in Europe. How many people was she able to persuade there? There were very genuine anxieties which affected them as well as us and in which, with a little more gentleness of touch, we might have had a greater influence instead of awakening hostility as we have done and finding ourselves now—usually, if not always—the odd man out.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: She saved us some money.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend can make his own speech in due course. I do not want to detain
246
the Committee for long, but I want to take the opportunity to say this. I was unable to he here during the Second Reading debate, which was, as many Members of the Committee have commented, a very remarkable display of intelligence as well as oratory., in very marked contrast to the proceedings in another place. I scanned the speech of my noble friend Lady Thatcher in the hope of understanding clearly what she saw as being so very different from the Declaration on European Union and the Single European Act in the treaty now being debated. I am bound to say that I was disappointed. I adhere strongly to the view expressed with such admirable clarity by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, based on his long experience of these matters.
I should like to add one further point. 'There seems to be underlying all our debates on this fundamental issue a strange but deep-rooted conceit that we in this country somehow or other run our affairs better than do other people. I beg to differ. Members of the Committee have only to draw on their own day-to-day experience of the way we handle important issues and legislation in this place to feel some unease. I put it no higher. If we were honest enough to compare the results achieved in our country with those achieved elsewhere, there are greater grounds for anxiety than for satisfaction.
4 p.m.
Lord Beloff: One could reply to the noble Lord by saying that we cannot really know—we are not impartial—whether we run our affairs better than other countries do. Most of us, I hope, would say that we certainly run them better than allowing other countries to run them for us, which is the purpose of the Treaty of Maastricht.
I share one view of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I share his admiration of the forensic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. What a career at the Bar was missed. What cases of worse triumphing over good might have happened if the courts had had the benefit of his extraordinary skills.
I take one example. The noble Lord, never without a text—no more than any first-rate barrister would be—quoted from the Treaty of Rome, and said that it talks about a "union of peoples". So it does. But peoples are separate entities. It is quite different to say that we are in favour of a union of peoples. All of us would wish to be on good terms with other people. At is not the same as saying that we wish to merge those peoples into a single people, which would be—and must be—the effect of common citizenship.
As pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and others, it is unthinkable that one can have common citizenship unless one is subject to a single common authority. In the United States of America—I share the admiration and liking of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for that great country—there are states. But nobody says he is a citizen of Arizona or South Dakota. He travels abroad and presents his passport as a citizen of the United States of America. Therefore, the lesser loyalties, which are very considerable in some cases, are subordinate to that legal position.

247
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, also raised a question which has been much in our minds; namely, the position of the monarchy. It is, I believe, generally accepted that the word "citizen" has a slightly bad ring to it in British parlance. It was introduced into public debate at the time of the French Revolution. It was as Citizen Capet that Louis XVI lost his head to the guillotine. In other words, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the only serious enthusiasts for the Treaty of Maastricht in this country are those in our republican movement. They rightly say, "Professor Haseler has written a whole book on this. If we were citizens of Europe, our ancient constitution, our monarch and our House of Lords would ipso facto disappear". We shall no doubt argue that point at a later stage.
However, that is by no means the central point with which we have to deal. That was brought home vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, who always captures our attention. The noble Lord spoke of grave matters which might well occupy us and mentioned unemployment in Europe. Why is the cure of unemployment not figuring so loudly in what are proclaimed by its political leaders as the desiderata of the European Community? Those leaders clearly attach more importance to the institutional changes before us than does the noble Lord. They attach more importance to them than to measures that might be taken to relieve Europe of the scourge of unemployment.
The noble Lord might equally have cited what is going on in the former Yugoslavia—that living, or rather dying, testimony to the European Community's common foreign policy. In other words, there are serious matters. One must answer the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. Why in these circumstances is this Chamber taking time to debate the details of the Treaty of Maastricht? The answer is simple. The Government—I believe, unwisely; indeed I might use a stronger word—have decided that it is appropriate for this country to accept through its parliamentary procedure a treaty which is enormously unpopular. Why do we not have a referendum? It is because everyone knows that the answer would be negative.
The treaty is violently unpopular. It is unpopular in this country and, as all the evidence shows, increasingly unpopular in continental Europe itself. People have come to realise that whatever they may feel about the desirability—and obviously there is a great deal of desire—of greater measures of co-operation, that can only be brought about by responsible governments answering to their parliaments and people for what they do. When something goes wrong governments cannot say: "Well, we could not help doing that. The Brussels Commission or the European Court (or some other institution) has acted in a way which renders us powerless".
The argument for the treaty and for passing this Bill is a dual one. We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, to some extent I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and indeed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at an earlier stage that it is simply taking another step which was
248
prefigured by the treaties and declarations into which we have already entered. Yet, if that is so, why at the same time are we told that unless we push through this legislation our position in Europe will be hopelessly undermined, we shall lose all our friends and we shall have no one left to talk to? Either the treaty is important, in which case in my view it should be voted down, or it is unimportant, in which case it is clearly unnecessary.
Since we, the so-called Eurosceptics, are told that we do not like Europeans, I should like to say something nice about some Germans. I shall mention in particular Chancellor Kohl, the former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and Commissioner Bangemann, all of whom come to our rescue whenever the Government seek to pull the wool over the British people's eyes by saying: "Of course, what Mr. Major and Mr. Hurd are saying about a wider, broader, free trading, outward looking Europe is all nonsense. What we are going to do, once the British Parliament has been unwise enough to accept this treaty, is to call the governments together to proceed to another step on the road to integration."
The quotation read by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, from a speech made by Chancellor Kohl could have been replicated several times. Other quotations could have been adduced. It is only by pretending that no such desire exists on the part of certain continental governments that it is possible to make a case for the acceptance of this treaty.
I beg Ministers, even at this late stage, to come clean. Do they truly believe that at Copenhagen, any more than at Edinburgh, Britain is getting its way and bringing about the kind of Europe that we would all prefer?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I could say—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The other side really must not hog the Floor.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: What did the noble Lord say?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. Some of us forget his bell-ringing days in North of England.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said that we have a treaty which has been signed and we should get on with it. That was his attitude. Indeed, that was the attitude that he took in 1972 when we discussed the European Communities Bill. He took that attitude to the degree that he supported a guillotine on that Bill. If I am not mistaken he also supported the Single European Act and again supported a guillotine in the other place so that discussion was restricted. Now there is this Bill. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that what has happened in Europe is that treaty is built upon treaty and, when this treaty is ratified and put into operation—I hope that it never will be put into operation but presumably if the Bill is passed and the treaty ratified that will happen—there will be another treaty which takes us a stage further.

249
The noble Lord knows very well that that is the case. Apparently he would deny Parliament and this Chamber the opportunity of discussing properly, by means of a Bill which refers to a treaty, the provisions of the treaty. Some of us are very concerned about the treaty. Some of us are very concerned that the Foreign Secretary, after he had signed the treaty, said: "Now that I have signed it, perhaps I had better read it". Maybe it was a joke. We do not know. That was said and reported in "heavy" newspapers such as The Times, the Telegraph and so on. A Member of the Cabinet, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, recommends the treaty to Parliament and the people but admits that he has not read it.
Frankly, to recommend a treaty whose provisions one has not read is completely irresponsible. When those who wish to discuss the provisions of the treaty want to take time to do so, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, will understand that we are concerned about the implications of the treaty—the implications not for us but for the people of this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said: "Once you have joined a club, you do not keep cavilling about the rules". Maybe he is right. If one cavils about the rules, one can resign from the club.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should be obliged if the noble Lord would give way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may just finish my point, which may be helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The noble Lord is making a Second Reading speech.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble and learned Lord says that I am making a Second Reading speech. He is completely mistaken. In fact, I am doing what a committee man should do. I am answering the points which have been made during debate in Committee.
Let me return to the point that I was making with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. It is true that if one joins a club, one accepts the rules or leaves. But this treaty states that its provisions are irrevocable so that one cannot get out of it. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord slightly misquotes me. I was not talking about the rules; I was talking about the club and its members. Before I sit down, perhaps I could coax the noble Lord back to the amendment.
Lord Stoddari of Swindon: The noble Lord need do no coaxing. I am speaking to the amendment. Before dealing with the matters that I wish to raise, I should like to answer some of the points that have been made by other noble Lords. That is proper Committee procedure. I hope that noble Lords will understand the position.
Why is it necessary to establish citizenship? What is it about? Why in order to establish the union do we all have to be citizens of that union? What is the objective? In order to make the treaty work, do we have to be citizens of a union and, if we are not, will the treaty not work? Those are the questions that must be asked. Why is the citizenship clause being imported
250
into the treaty? What good will it do? Will it make the provisions of the treaty work any better? If the answer is that citizenship is not needed to make the treaty work better, why is it in there, if not to make us citizens of a future European federal or unitary state? That is the worry of people who are opposed to the citizenship clause. We cannot understand why it is in the treaty unless the intention is to go Further and build a European federal state or, even worse, a unitary European state with a central government and a central bureaucracy. That is why we wish to discuss the clause in detail. We are entitled to know what it means.
Some people state that nationality does not matter. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, correctly stated that he is both a Scot and a British citizen. Being a Scot, if I may say so. does not matter. Let us think about it.
Baroness Seear: Would the noble Lord say that being Welsh does not matter?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It matters even less, if I may say so, because we are all citizens of the United Kingdom, owing allegiance to the Queen of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is the entity that governs us and provides for us, and being Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish does not make any difference in that regard. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and to all Scotsmen—and perhaps my antecedents are Scottish—that when the Act of Union was passed without the consent of the people, it was never able to stick. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, calls himself a Scot and not a Briton. He wants to be a Scot. Scots want their own Parliament. The Labour Party wants a referendum to decide whether there should he Scottish devolution. The Scottish National Party still wants independence from the United Kingdom. Therefore, the question of nationality may or may not 'be important. The important matter is the question of government and to whom one owes a duty of allegiance. That is what the debate and the amendments are about.
We should know what the duties are that are prescribed in Article 8. Would anyone take on a job without knowing the duties that are involved? The British people should not be asked to take on duties without being consulted, unless those duties are specified. Will they be creeping duties? Will we be told that "duties" does not really mean duties, in the same way as we were assured during the debate on the Single European Act that "union" did not mean union?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the noble Lord accept that in Article 8 of Title II there is no duty referred to, only rights?
The Earl of Onslow: The article states:
"The citizens of the Union shall enjoy rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is no reference to
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Order, order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Let us have some order. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked whether he could intervene in my speech and I sat down and allowed him to do so. In his enthusiasm, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, answered on my behalf the point that was made by the noble Lord. May I be allowed to resume my speech?
Amendment No. 396A provides for people to be able to renounce their citizenship. If citizenship is being forced upon them, why should they not have the opportunity to renounce it? If a referendum were held the situation might be different, but there will be no referendum. At a later stage, when we can further discuss the amendment and perhaps vote on it, the House will then understand that people should have a choice of whether to be citizens of the European Union.
The article is a bad one. It is completely unnecessary. I hope that at the appropriate time an amendment will be passed that will take it out.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to point out that there is no reference in Article 8 to any duty at all. The only reference is to rights. The common citizenship that is the subject matter of the amendment—which I should like to stick to—is concerned only with the provisions of Article 8. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to Amendment No. 396 in which it is suggested that the question of the sovereign is concerned. Article 8 is perfectly simple to understand. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, he has misconstrued it. Citizenship of the union under Article 8 is dependent upon nationality. It confers a dual status in the case of a monarchy such as ours, as a subject of the monarch—and we are not citizens, we are subjects of the Queen—and as citizens of the union. That is the true constitutional position.
Under the second paragraph of Article 8, citizens of the Union have rights which are fully set out. There is no reference to duties, other than by inference to those imposed—here I understand the argument—by the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Maastricht Bill, ECSC and Euratom. Our sovereign is not a citizen and neither are the subjects of the six sovereign states which are members of the European Community.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that in the groupings tabled for discussion today, Amendment No. 396 is not included? Amendment No. 396A is included, which does not bring in the substance of Amendment No. 396.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I was aware of that. Nothing would have led me to intervene on Amendment No. 396 until the noble Lord, Lord Moran, specifically introduced it. I therefore left the Chamber to pick up my notes on Amendment No. 396 which I intended to use next Wednesday. However, as it was introduced, I felt that I had better get on with it now.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. I wish to make clear that I did not introduce it. I explained that it had been grouped and was no longer grouped with the present group and will be dealt with on Wednesday.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall not waste any further time, except to say that I hope your Lordships and my noble friend Lord Onslow will have ample opportunity to speak other than from a sedentary position for the third time today.
As I was trying to say, if the Committee look objectively at Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty, no construction could conceivably serve as a launch pad for federalism, for central government or for any of the fears expressed this afternoon.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend. It enables me also to pick up a point which was made by our noble friend Lord Cockfield. I put it to my noble friend that if, in 1972, I had said to him that the reference to a union of the peoples of Europe was actually a coded reference to the proposal which was to be brought forward 21 years later to make us citizens of Europe, I am sure that he would have accused me of engaging in fantasies and—to coin a phrase from the Front Bench—nightmares for little children.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to my noble friend. With his leave and the leave of the Committee, I do not want to enter into a debate between either of my noble friends on the issue. In fact I support the way in which it was put forward by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. However, I am on a slightly different point.
My point is that if one reads Article 8, on any construction no court in the world could consider that as a launch pad for federalism. They are phantom fears if they are based, as they uniquely are, on Article 8 of the Treaty.
I apologise for having made a speech on Amendment No. 396 perhaps at the wrong time. I shall now sit down.
Lord Chalfont: Like many other Members of the Committee who have spoken this afternoon I did not put my name down to speak at Second Reading. Having been involved since the 1960s more or less directly in this argument, I felt that I had already spoken and written more than enough on the subject. Therefore I shall not rehearse the arguments here and, in deference to many interruptions and interventions that have been made so far, I shall certainly not make a Second Reading speech. I should like to intervene, if I may, in the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and other Members of your Lordships' Committee, including the noble Lord—if he will permit me to call him my noble friend—Lord Beloff.
I find myself on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. We have heard much in this debate on an amendment to do with citizenship, about the Trojans and about Don Pacifico, the Greeks and many other exotic figures and nationalities of that kind. We have had a somewhat confused series of exchanges regarding nationalities, being a subject and being a

253
citizen. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that he may not think it is terribly important to be a Welshman, but to a Welshman it is extremely important. I do not say that in a light-hearted, superficial way. It goes to the heart of much of what we are discussing today. It matters to Welshmen that they are Welsh and it may matter to other people as well.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate his comments, since I was horn in Wales and am therefore a Welshman. But that was not my point. I understand perfectly well that Welsh people and Scots people feel proud of being Welsh and Scots—I do. My heart expands and contracts when 1: go back to that Rhondda Valley; make no mistake about that.
What I was trying to say was that being Welsh did not alter the fact that we were citizens of the United Kingdom and that it was the United Kingdom institutions which governed our lives. Many of us in Wales did not like that, and still do not like it.
Lord Chalfont: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I might also point out to him—and this will be proved by a visit to any Chinese restaurant in Cardiff—that being born in Wales does not make one a Welshman.
There have been one or two minor fallacies which I might take a moment to comment upon. One is that one does not need a passport to travel between countries of the Common Market or the European Community. Of course we do. I have just returned from a visit to Paris where I had to show my passport both going in and coming out. I fail to see how it could be otherwise. How else is the customs officer to know that one is a national of one of the countries of the Common Market? Therefore, for people to say that we no longer need a passport to travel around the Common Market countries is, and I suspect will always remain, a fallacy.
There is another fallacy, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will forgive me for referring to it. He spoke of the advantage of joining a shorter queue at the immigration desk. There was a time when there were two sides in London Airport—British passports and others. As a British passport holder one could join a fairly short queue while the others gathered in their hundreds along the other side of the hall. Nowadays, we have EC passports and others. The EC passport holders form the longest queue of all, whereas all the other nationalities are in short queues.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It enables me slightly to correct him, if I may. I point out that the son of the cook in the Chinese restaurant in Wales will be in the same queue as the noble Lord and me. He may not be Welsh—because Welsh is not a nationality—but he will be British because he has been born in the United Kingdom. I am surprised that the noble Lord should have made such a remark. If I had made it it would probably have provoked mutters amongst a number of noble Lords.
Lord Chalfont: I think not. My remark was a light hearted one. I do not think that anyone would ever accuse me of expressing some of the more extreme sentiments that would lie behind that remark if it was made seriously. I simply say that if I saw the son of a Chinese cook next to me in the queue I would know that he was not a Welshman.
I wish to come to my serious point that arises directly from something said by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, to which other noble Lords have taken exception. I support it wholeheartedly--even more so because of the experience in this Chamber this afternoon on the first amendment. As the noble Lord has said, it is true that there are many other domestic and international matters of great moment confronting the country today. There are matters concerning the defence of the realm, about which many of us are deeply disturbed and anxious. There are possible stirrings of war in the Balkans which may yet engulf us. There is disruption and instability in what used to be the Soviet Union. At the moment and in the immediate future massive problems face this country and this continent. Yet in this great Chamber we are spending six days debating or tabling 430 amendments to a short Bill that concerns a treaty that we cannot amend but can only accept or reject.
Without, I hope, making an improper prognostication, I suspect that at the end the Maastricht Treaty will be ratified. We are committed to this process because of the nature of our parliamentary democracy. I take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. No one would dream of denying the right of any Member of this House or the other place to discuss this Bill for as long and as tediously as he might wish. However, with all due diffidence and a deep sense of resignation I suggest that there may be better ways to spend our time.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: The question before the Committee is not whether or not the treaty should go forward—that matter was discussed at Second reading—but whether the treaty should go forward in its present form; in particular whether it should contain the references to citizenship prefigured in the preamble and set out in Article 8. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway performed a notable service by drawing to your Lordships' attention the text of Article 8. However, I feel that he has not gone far enough.
I will take two minutes to remind perhaps one or two of your Lordships who have not as yet read the article that Article 8 sets out citizenship in paragraphs 1 and 2 and thereafter Articles 8a to 8e qualify it. The citizenship in Article 8 entails rights and duties imposed on or given to people who hold the nationality of a member state. Article 8a gives a right of freedom of movement and residence; Article 8b gives a right of freedom to vote; Article 8c gives a right to protection; Article 8d gives a right to petition and a right of access to an ombudsman; and Article 8e gives a right to protection in countries overseas. None of those is a duty. All of those matters are desirable. The last two are created de novo by the article and should be welcomed.

255
My noble friend Lord Onslow. and to some extent my noble friend Lord Tebbit, rested part of their appeal to your Lordships—understandably because it was attractive—on your Lordships' emotional reaction to the idea of citizenship and, by inference, nationality and the flag. All of those are matters that we regard as exceedingly dangerous when they are not dealt with by intellect but by the heart in places like Northern Ireland.
At Committee stage we are under a duty to the country to look at the matter without emotion but as to its effects. Can there be a creeping citizenship of the kind to which my noble friend Lord Onslow referred? I look again at Article 8 and at paragraphs a to e that qualify it. In every case I see that nothing further can be done without the unanimous approval of the council. Nothing can be done by the council without the consent, knowledge and support of the elected representatives of this country. There is no danger of a hidden, creeping, anonymous citizenship. The only qualification of that is to be found in paragraph 2 of Article 8a. That deals not with a duty but a right. One may think that the extension of rights is something that one may allow to go forward without too much anxiety. However, since your Lordships are anxious I should say that it uses the words "save as otherwise provided in this Treaty".
The treaty is there to be read. If your Lordships trouble to read it—and it seems that some of your Lordships have not—it can be seen exactly what those rights and duties are. There is no mystery about the treaty. To read it takes a lot of hard work. But we are talking about a point in history when we can either proceed or halt. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others, I suggest that the time has come to proceed and that there is no danger in proceeding with the Bill and the treaty as drafted in this respect. I hope that we will soon go on to consider other respects because we have been dealing with this for one hour and 41 mortal minutes.
Viscount Tonypandy: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, himself spoke with great emotion and endeavoured to arouse feelings in this Chamber. He is not alone. Every noble Lord who has spoken this afternoon has sought to influence the opinion of other noble Lords. We would be a very poor Chamber indeed were we to say that there was no room for emotion and deep feeling. The British public feel deeply on this subject. Both those in favour of saying goodbye to our past and opening a brave new chapter—under which we are a permanent minority in Europe—and those who are opposed to it feel deeply. I listened with increasing disbelief to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. If ever I heard a speech in this Chamber that expressed a lack of faith in the ability of the British people to govern themselves, I heard it from the noble Lord. He asked: did we think we could do things better than others? We do not need anyone to ask that question of a country that has the longest history of democracy in Europe. The British people have proved their ability to govern themselves.
Noble Lords are prepared to say that Malta can stand on its own; that Australia can stand on its own;
256
there is a whole list of countries. But not the United Kingdom. Noble Lords who have lost faith in the ability of the people of this country to govern themselves are speaking for themselves and they are not speaking for the mass of the British people.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was not doubting for a moment the ability of the British people to govern themselves. What I was doubting was whether they were using their talents to the full at this time.
Viscount Tonypandy: To that point I now address myself. I believe—I still believe—in the ability of Britain to manage its own affairs. I have always agreed about the necessity for economic arrangements and treaties with other states. Of course, that is what led us on as a trusting people, believing we were entering an economic argument. But what do we find? We find an impatience. I have been quite aware this afternoon of an impatience from a lot of people to hear the opposition and want us to hurry on. An hour and 40 minutes on the citizenship of the British people is not asking too much.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Tonypandy: I believe that we are entitled to a lot more than that before we take a watershed decision.
My noble friend Lord Moran referred to the duties of citizenship. The High Court of Parliament has no greater responsibility than to protect the citizenship of its people and the defence of its people. There is an uneasiness that this treaty is landing the citizens of this country with duties which they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, being asked to accept but are being told to accept. We are fortunate people in this Chamber. We are not elected people. We are having a say. The great mass of the British people who are not elected are being denied a say. We shall no doubt come to that later in our proceedings.
We have never in this Chamber carried a greater responsibility than we do now. I suppose that every one of us has read the mighty debates of the past—the great excitements over great issues within our land. But this is a watershed debate. This is a debate which could well change the whole course of the power and the rights of our people for generations yet to come. It is not a triviality. Perhaps I may, as I take my seat, say this to noble Lords with whom I disagree. Of course we are all friendly with each other in this Chamber. We must have the ability to disagree with those whose friendship we claim. But we all share a common responsibility for the privilege of belonging to a non-elected Chamber. We have a special responsibility to make sure that the British people themselves will decide which way they want to go.
Lord Kennet: I share the conviction of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that this is a watershed debate. Every step taken forward and every step not taken forward in the creation of the European Community is a watershed debate for both Houses of Parliament. I wish to take up two points made in the

257
present debate, both of which I believe are mistaken in a way which could affect the manner in which Members of the Committee vote on this amendment.
The first is a point made by my noble friend Lord Parry, which has been made often before by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. It concerns the break-up of the great federations of Eastern Europe—what are we doing inventing a federation in Western Europe when in Eastern Europe we have the horrible example of two fairly long-established federations which have broken up in bloodshed and horror? This misses the point that those two federations were created and maintained by force of arms. The Soviet federation was nothing more or less than the Russian empire as it stood after the two world wars, formalised by communism, and as such its dissolution is to be compared not with the creation of any federation in the West but with the dissolution of the British Empire. And of course it compares very unfavourably with the way in which we did that.
The break-up of the Yugoslav federation is slightly different. It was created by force of arms in the Second World War and was maintained, not indeed by external communist tyranny, but by internal communist tyranny, by force of arms throughout the past 40 years. The break-up of that federation is no more a reason why we should not create one in the West than is the break-up of the Soviet Union itself. Incidentally, the Soviet break-up was not all that surprising. At least one member of this Chamber predicted the break-up of the Soviet Union in print in 1978.
The second point I should like to take up is one made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about the word "citizenship". He implied that the word "citizen" is something seditious, dangerous, un-British, tending towards the guillotine, and as such the creation of a new citizenship was bound, if I understood the noble Lord correctly—I am sorry that he is not in his place—to drag us, even if never so little, towards a republic in this country, or at any rate would be deleterious to our national monarchy. It seemed to me that the noble Lord was ignoring the existence of the other four monarchies in the European Community. If the noble Lord were here I would have asked him whether he thought that the Queen of Holland was any less secure and fortunate in her monarchy because that well-governed democracy belongs to the European Community.
The Earl of Onslow: There are five.
Lord Kennet: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I must have forgotten one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Luxembourg.
Lord Kennet: Luxembourg. Absolutely right. It is just because they are not called "King" that one sometimes forgets that they are a monarchy. But one often forgets that Luxembourg is an independent state too. The argument is clear. If our Queen is suffering, then the others would be suffering too. They visibly are not. Any reduction in the status and influence of
258
our monarchy is due entirely to other factors, and nothing dreadful will happen to it if we sign the Treaty of Maastricht as it is.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Citizenship of Europe represents an ideal. It is a very ancient ideal. Many Members of the Committee will recall the words of Schiller:
"Alle Menschen werden Brüder
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt".
I apologise to some Members of the Committee if the German language may be unwelcome to them. But I hope that it is welcome to the majority of the Committee:
"All men shall become brothers where your healing wings are spread".
There may be a larger aspiration there not restricted to Europe. And if I may say so, the concept of the brotherhood of nations has not been ever present in this debate. I was moved by what the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said, but I would remind him that the aspiration towards the European ideal was, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield indicated, already represented in the Treaty of Rome,
"to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
Before we get down to the details, the responsibilities and the duties, I think that there is an ideal here which should be referred to. My noble friend Lord Onslow said that he did not want to be a citizen of Tuscany or Burgundy, but I am very happy to be close to Tuscany and to be associated with Florence or Sienna—and many of us are happy with our associations with Burgundy. I do not think that there is anything to be ashamed of in that particular association.
Some persons here present in your Lordships' Committee seem to regard citizenship as something of a poisoned chalice. I detected a note of distaste in the words of my noble friend Lord Tebbit who clearly thought that "citizenship" was rather disagreeable. My noble friend Lord Beloff referred to the tumbrils and the guillotine as if both would he entering your Lordships' House if we embraced such a term. I do not think that it needs to carry those implications. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out that no specific duties are implied or referred to In the Treaty of Maastricht. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made clear in his observations from the Woolsack the other day, that it is clear that should any duties be proposed, they will be brought forward in due time and will be open to debate arid, no doubt, to rejection.
First, therefore, I regard citizenship of Europe as an aspiration. I have long felt myself to be a citizen of Europe, but that does not mean that I have not felt myself to be a citizen of the world or to be it Scot or a citizen of Cambridge. I have long felt myself to be a citizen of Europe, and I am happy to see that explicitly enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht.
I have one other point to make. It is a technical point relating to the amendments. No noble Lord has made it yet although it seems important. Amendment No. 2 seeks to insert "The Preamble" followed by the deletion of about six or seven words. If one inspects the preamble, which is on page 5 of the Treaty of

259
Maastricht as made available to us, and which is headed "Treaty on European Union", one sees that it includes a great many matters which I would be happy to see enshrined in the Bill but which, as the Bill stands, are not explicitly part of it. Among those—and towards the bottom—are the words,
"RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
I do not know whether the noble Lords who suggest this amendment are proposing that we should enshrine within the Bill the principle that we are,
"RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
I should be perfectly happy to see that, but there is a paradox—perhaps I should say an inconsistency—in the hearts of those noble Lords who have proposed the amendment, in that they are introducing onto the face of the Bill wording which may be inimical to them.
Amendment No. 8 proposes introducing the whole of Title I into the Bill apart from the few words specified. Again, that seems extraordinary. One noble Lord who spoke on the other side suggested that he might go into the Division Lobbies in support of these amendments. What a very curious thing to do if one is hostile to the Maastricht Treaty, and especially if one is hostile to the Bill, because Title I is not an integral part of the Bill before us. Indeed, that would be unsatisfactory because it is Title I which separates the two pillars, the twin pillars which are not an integral part of the Bill, from the central pillar which is already part of Community legislation.
This is, in fact, more than a debate about citizenship. This is also a wrecking amendment, which would fundamentally destroy the structure of the Bill by including within it elements which are not at present part of it and which I do not think that those proposing the amendments would find welcome.
I hope that I have not made that sound too confusing, but if it does sound confusing, it is because the amendments are confused. The amendments seek to delete the concept of citizenship from the Bill. Noble Lords proposing the amendment could well have done that by suggesting the deletion of Article 8 although, as we have already heard, the notion of deleting individual elements is not really part of the process before us today. Had they sought to delete Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty, there would have been logic, but to introduce into the Bill the preamble and Title I of the Maastricht Treaty is simply a nonsense. With due respect to those noble Lords who tabled these amendments, I regret to say that I regard them as nonsense and I do not see how anybody could possibly seriously support them.
Lord Parry: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he accept—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Parry: I am referring to the noble Lord as he sits down. I think that I am entitled to do that. Will he accept that his German pronunciation was immaculate and that it brought back to our minds the phrase that is seldom from them, but that his Welsh
260
pronunciation left a great deal to be desired since the noble Viscount who spoke before him is not the noble Viscount, Lord Tony-pandy, but the noble Viscount, Lord Ton-y-Pan-Dy?
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I stand corrected.
5 p.m.
Lord Monson: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, what worries many of us is not necessarily the idea of citizenship of the Union, but the idea of compulsory citizenship. Inherent in the concept of citizenship is an implied duty of loyalty. It is difficult to think of any example in history where the connection between citizenship and the duty of loyalty has not been made. If the Bill remains unamended, as my noble friend Lord Moran has pointed out, no United Kingdom subject will have any right to disclaim this new citizenship with its implied obligation of loyalty towards a European Union for which he may have no enthusiasm and for which he may, indeed, have a positive distaste. He will have no right or ability to disclaim citizenship unless he goes so far as to emigrate to, say, Australia or the United States—that is quite difficult in these times of world-wide recession and mass unemployment—with a view to becoming a citizen of his adopted country and renouncing his United Kingdom, and hence his European, citizenship.
The Danes, like ourselves, are a proud people, with none of the guilt about their role in the Second World War which leads some of the other countries in the Community to accept the idea of downgrading their own nationality in favour of a supra-national arrangement. The Danes do not want to be forced to become citizens of the European Union and, accordingly, have secured an opt-out for themselves. If the Danes can be granted an opt-out, why cannot we?
One unwelcome side effect of this, in many cases, unsought citizenship is an obligation to submit to unspecified duties. Amendment No. 53, to which I have added my name, and which we shall deal with in due course, seeks to put that right. On at least two occasions when this question has arisen, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has said that she rather wishes that the word "duties" was not in the Treaty. It is clear that, unlike some of her noble friends, she is basically unhappy with that word. The noble Baroness then went on to suggest that the word appeared in the treaty almost accidentally and that it was never meant to be taken completely literally, and that, therefore, there is very little to worry about.
However, on 7th June, in a most interesting Second Reading speech, my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce told the House quite specifically:
"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".— [Official Report, 7/6/93; col. 577.]
So, the idea that the word "duties" has crept in almost accidentally simply will not wash.
It is true that no specific duties are enumerated in the treaty. I think that was the point which the noble

261
Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was trying to make. But just wait until the European Court has got to work on interpreting the treaty. I suspect that we shall then be burdened with duties aplenty.
Lord Derwent: Perhaps I may just make one point to the Committee in what is now the third hour of the debate. It is extremely dangerous to play down, as some noble Lords have done, the importance of the mere concept of citizenship. The trouble with this country at the moment is that many people think that they can enjoy citizenship, but that it places no obligation on them of a moral nature; it does not oblige them, in extremis, to fight for this country. Regardless of what the law says, they feel no compulsion to respond to the responsibility of being a British citizen.
I find it extraordinarily dangerous to do as some noble Lords have done, and, indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, suggested, and say, "Ah, but there are different kinds of citizenship," and that European citizenship is not important; it is just a reciprocal obligation; it does not mean anything; it is an aspiration. How can we expect the ordinary people in this country who are not lawyers to say, "Ah, but with this kind of citizenship I am compelled morally to go and fight if necessary, but that other kind of citizenship is only an aspiration".
We are at risk of being too clever. The man and woman in the street needs to be encouraged to think that citizenship means obligations. Far from trying to find ways of saying that there are no obligations if one is a citizen, I, on the contrary, would say that one should not be a citizen unless one is prepared to accept many obligations. That is the only point that I want to make, because how many people in this country will feel that citizenship of Europe imposed upon them will, in the end, oblige them morally to go and fight for Europe?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Mindful of the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy—I apologise for my Welsh pronunciation—that there is an impatience in the Chamber to reach a conclusion in the debate, I promise faithfully that I shall not detain the Committee long.
I want to say, at the most, three things. Perhaps I may begin where I finished my Second Reading speech: with the rise of nationalism throughout Europe. I do not have the European experience of my noble friend Lady Castle, but I had some experience of five years' working with the Council of Europe and its sub-committee on human rights. I saw at first hand many of the atrocities, as Burns described them, "Man's inhumanity to man", all carried out in the name of nationalism. Each time we visited a country in Europe, whether it was Yugoslavia or, with the unification of Germany, the former East Germany, the evidence given to the commissioners was based on nationalism.
Until my dying day, I shall never forget the hearing held at Frankfurt-on-Oder on that German/Polish border, where—I say as an aside—there is the highest concentration of young Nazis, when we were interviewing various people about some of the things
262
that were going on in that part of what is now the unified Germany. I make that point, because all the evidence given was based on nationalism. I say in all frankness that if I have to chose between citizenship of a wider Europe or nationalism, my choice every time will be citizenship of a wider Europe.
I reject, as gently and kindly as I possibly can, the argument that it is not possible to be a citizen of a wider Europe and still retain one's Scottishness, Welshness, or Irishness. Of course it is possible to be a citizen of a wider community and retain one's Scottishness, Irishness or Welshness. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was inaccurate when he said that one's nationality is determined—I believe that is the word he used—on one's passport. Of course that is not accurate. I am sure that on reflection the noble Lord would concede that. It would mean that only those who had a passport had a nationality. One's nationality is in fact defined on one's birth certificate. It is possible to be a citizen of a much wider community and still retain those elements of one's background—where one was born and brought up.
I apologise to noble Lords who support the amendment, because I am really speaking through them to my colleagues, especially on this side of the Chamber, who have not declared themselves. One of the things that has struck me forcefully throughout the debate is the way in which those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment are supporting the amendment for different reasons. For example, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, supports the amendment because he does not want to be a citizen of a wider Europe—that is fair enough—and he is worried about the future of the monarchy. One or two other noble Lords spoke in that vein. That is not the position of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He is openly honest—I say that sincerely—as he always is. He made it clear that he was supporting the amendment—I put this point to my noble friend Lord Jay—not because of the obligations that would be placed on citizens of a wider Europe, but because of the rights that would flow from that citizenship. He then went on to define those rights—the 48-hour week.
When the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that he said that in years to come it will be presented to this place, "You accepted this citizenship and therefore you have to accept the rights, arid the rights will be the inability of an employer to make you work more than 48 hours a week if you do not want to work more than 48 hours a week". I suspect that he meant the whole of the Social Chapter. If that is the noble Lord's opposition, and the reason for his support for the amendment, he has said enough to convince me to oppose the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jay.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: Before the noble Lord sits down, let me make it plain to him that my objection to this citizenship is the same objection as that of his right honourable friend Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn in the other place. That is, that it is not a question of whether there should be a 48-hour week; it is a question of who should decide whether there should

263
be a 48-hour week; whether it should be decided in this Palace of Westminster or in that "palace" of the Berlaymont. That is the issue upon which Mr. Wedgwood Benn and I stand shoulder to shoulder in opposition to the noble Lord who says that that should be decided in Berlaymont. Mr. Benn and I believe that it should be decided in Westminster, whichever way it goes.
Noble Lords: Speech, speech!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am afraid that I have to speak to Amendment No. 53 which is in my name and which deals specifically with the question of duties. I appreciate that I do this after a wide-ranging debate on citizenship and duties, but Amendment No. 53 does refer to Title II of the treaty which is imported into the Bill. Before I speak to the amendment, may I say to my noble friend Lord Renfrew, who regaled the Committee with fluent German, that I am sure those of us who oppose this Bill and this treaty would not wish it to be thought that only those on the other side have a command of a European language; therefore I would remind my noble friend Lord Renfrew of an ancient Italian saying which goes: "Meglio soli the malaccompagnati": "Better alone than badly accompanied".
The amendment seeks to remove the new duties, as yet unspecified, which the Treaty on European Union would impose on British citizens. In order to get this matter into perspective for Members of the Committee who may not have made the substantial effort actually to read this wretched treaty, I fear that I should quote the opening two clauses of Part Two of Title II of the Union Treaty. Note, it is no longer to be the European Economic Community. The word "economic" is now to be dropped.
Part Two of Title II, entitled "Citizenship of the Union" starts with Article 8 of the Union treaty and reads as follows:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby".
My Lords, it is the last nine words that we seek to prevent from being imported into British law.
I propose to deal with the amendment by reminding Members of the Committee of what the Government have said to support their contention that Article 8.2 contains no new duties for British citizens. I shall then explain why I fear they are wrong. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and, to some extent, my noble friend Lord Elton have today joined the Government in that position. I hope to show that they too are wrong.
To set out the Government's position I can do no better than quote what my noble friend Lady Chalker, the Minister, said in this Chamber on 17th February and what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said at Second Reading of the Bill on 8th June. My noble friend Lady Chalker said:
"The concept of a union citizenship is additional to national citizenship. It does not replace national citizenship. It constitutes a means of linking some existing rights with limited additional rights …Nowhere in the citizenship
264
provisions is there any mention of a duty of the kind normally regarded as deriving from national citizenship; for example, military service. The reference in the treaty to 'duties' is not a reference to specific duties".
This is important,
"Neither the Maastricht Treaty nor any previous Community treaties impose specific duties on individuals. It is therefore an unnecessary and empty reference. In many ways I find that it is a misleading reference, and I wish it had not been included, because it has no value. I assure your Lordships that there is no power to add new duties under the Maastricht Treaty".
I hope to show that that is wrong. My noble friend added:
"Let me just add that the Maastricht Treaty in no way alters the Queen's constitutional position in the United Kingdom; nor does it impose specific duties on individuals. If she chose, Her Majesty would be entitled to exercise the rights set out in the citizenship provision provided for in Articles 8 to 8e of the treaty. My noble friend Lord Pearson also asked about renunciation. He asked whether one could renounce citizenship".
My noble friend answered that by saying:
"That is a non-issue because citizenship confers certain rights but no obligations. Citizens are not obliged to take advantage of the benefit".—;[Official Report, 17/2/93; col. 1206.]
I do not want to dwell on the position of Her Majesty because I believe that we are to debate that fully on 30th June, which I understand is likely to be the last day of our Committee stage. Suffice it to say that at the moment the Sovereign is to be in the same boat as the rest of us, whatever that vessel turns out to be and wherever it turns out to be going.
The position was confirmed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 8th June. My noble and learned friend said:
"Let me try to explain. Union citizenship does not override national citizenship. On the contrary, it is dependent upon it: one cannot be a citizen of the Union without being a citizen of a member state".
He went on,
"Maastricht will not make us subject to anyone other than Her Majesty and we shall not owe any allegiance to the European Union".
Then we come to what I believe may be the crunch. My noble and learned friend said:
"Article 8 makes a reference to duties. But these are duties incumbent upon nationals and residents of the United Kingdom under the treaty. The treaty includes of course the Treaty of Rome, so that the duties in question in Article 8 are the duties which have been incumbent upon nationals and residents of the United Kingdom, as they have been since we joined the Community in 1972".—[Official Report, 8/6/93; col. 714.]
In other words, the Government's position, which is shared by many Members of the Committee and which seems to be set out very clearly in the passage that I have just quoted from my noble and learned friend, is that we only acquire duties under this new union treaty in the same way as we acquired them before; under the Single European Act in 1986 and, indeed, under the Treaty of Rome in 1972.
I believe that the relevant clause of the Treaty of Rome is Clause 189. Indeed, it remained live and relevant in the Single European Act and is now proposed for the Union treaty. It is the clause that first required us to import European legislation into our own British legislation and to make our legislation inferior to that of Brussels and Luxembourg. I am sure that the Government are right when they say that we shall acquire new duties under Clause 189 of the

265
Treaty of Rome if that is carried forward into the proposed Union treaty. But that is only half the story and it is not the half which the amendment sets out to cure.
One does not need to be a lawyer to see that the new Article 8 makes no reference whatever to the old Article 189. Article 8 is an entirely separate and new clause. Indeed, coming as high up in the treaty as Article 8 it must be considered to have precedence over Article 189. I mention that because leading members of our Government have opined that the Preamble and early verbiage of these European treaties are mere "Euro-waffle". Indeed they are, but experience has shown that the Luxembourg Court not only takes them seriously but that it can set higher store by them than by the deplorable drafting which follows in the treaty texts themselves. I believe that the Van Ghent & Loos case proves that point. So Article 8 is an entirely new clause. It establishes an entirely new concept of citizenship of the Union and it proposes to enshrine entirely new duties as yet unspecified which flow from the proposed new rights.
If the Government can show that I am wrong, it must be logical for them to agree with the amendment because the duties in question must be a dangerous irrelevance at best. If the Government cannot show that I am wrong, they cannot honourably proceed to ratify the union treaty unless our new duties have been removed from its text. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say and have to reserve my position as to whether to ask the opinion of the Committee until we reach the appropriate number in the Marshalled List.
Lord Bruce of Donington: In listening to the debate, it has become clear that the whole question of citizenship as set out in Article 8 and in parts of other clauses arouses a considerable amount of feeling. Such feeling has been expressed on all sides of the Chamber and one must respect that. There is of course a passion—although I do not know how passions are born of boredom—to get rid of the whole thing as quickly as possible as though it were quite indecent and should be swept under the carpet. To debate on that level puts the issue in a context which is slightly different from that in which we in this House like to discuss questions of principle. To adopt a polite but modified "yah boo" attitude towards every opinion with which one disagrees falls short of the standards to which we all aspire and which some of us achieve—although I regret to say not always myself. They are the generally accepted standards in this Chamber.
I find it difficult to work up any emotion at this time about becoming a European citizen. It is not a prospect which has occurred to me previously but I cannot possibly exclude in the future feeling some emotion about it. However, for some obscure reason I cannot do so today, as of now. We are all politicians whether or not we like to think we are. Sometimes Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches like to abdicate all responsibilities to outside people and eschew all political responsibility. But most Members are in politics and some of us have been so for a long time.
266
I studied and took part in the previous election campaign and I did not notice any spontaneous demand from the people of our country for European citizenship. I read most of the newspapers avidly at that time, as I do every day, but I cannot recall that being made an election issue. For example it was not in any manifesto that it is a burning aspiration upon which the British people wish to be satisfied that we must become European citizens. That did not appear in any party's manifesto. It was not even put down in writing.
Certainly, the idea of European citizenship did not originate from British Ministers. British Ministers never mentioned it. As I tried to point out on Second Reading, one of the reasons for that is that they do not have the time. They are attending to their ministerial boxes and trying to repel boarders, whether they are members of the Government or the Opposition or whether they are keeping their peace as neutrals in any kind of dispute. That has not been put forward seriously by anybody.
Who shunted all that upon us? Who initiated the idea? If the authors are here or in another place, if the original concept of that glorious vision were to have originated in Britain, it would have come from a Minister in another place or from an illustrious Minister here. It might even have come from those with the forensic and legal skills of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Where did it come from? Like all other proposals, it came from the Commission. It came from a body of 17 people.
I wish to be quite frank with the House, as I try always to be. I know some of the commissioners. Some are most agreeable. For example, I know Herr Bangemann quite well. He was on the budget committee of the European Parliament with me. I remember one of his interpolations in that committee. His only complaint about the United Kingdom was that he would have to wait six months for his Jaguar. That was a legitimate method of speaking in the budget committee in those days.
I do not believe that the Commission gave the proposal very serious and profound consideration. Why was it brought forward at all? It is a classic shifting of goal posts situation. Members of this Chamber who participated in the debate on the Single European Act—and I see some of them here this afternoon—will remember it quite well. I have all the texts as Members of the Committee would expect me to have. We were told that unless we passed the Single European Act, we should be left out of the mainstream of European affairs. We should be taking the slow line instead of the fast line.
We were told more than that, in particular by the Commission which can always produce a long and authoritative "independent" report at any convenient stage in order to support its views. The Commission issued a document at great expense which explained to us, to the other place and to the country that if we did not pass the Single European Act and if we did not complete the single market, all kinds of dire things would happen. It was said that unemployment would increase and that productivity would not increase as much as it should. It was said that we should

267
progressively lose our share as Europeans, let alone as British, of world markets. Many dire predictions were made.
I am sure that Members of the Committee are not intimidated by such threats. After all, we should be inured to them by now. We were told right from the beginning that unless we took certain action as regards Europe, all kinds of terrible things would happen. The Government Front Bench has now, although it did not do so at the time of the Single European Act, succeeded in convincing my noble friends of that, so it must be persuasive. It is odd that although we passed the Single European Act, the tragic scenario has followed in any event. Indeed, in Europe unemployment is running at 17.5 million and is projected to run at 20 million. Growth in Europe is projected to fall to 0.5 per cent. next year. And yet Commission experts say that Europe needs a growth rate of at least 2.5 per cent. per annum to keep unemployment at its present level. Europe has lost one-fifth of its overseas trade.
In short, even though we did all that we were supposed to do, the predictions have come true in exactly the same inverse proportions that we were promised with the inducements offered to us. However—and herein lies the answer to the story—it is not as though we have completed the single market. I do not wish to tax the memories of Members of the Committee but I hope that it is remembered that we were told of the magnificent opportunities which would arise from the completion of the single market on 1st January 1993. It is now 22nd June, the second longest day of the year, and still 20 per cent. of the market remains to be completed. Those are the latest figures although the Government have not as yet specified which of the single market regulations on the original list of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, still remain to be completed. They have not thought it wise to acquaint Parliament as to how far the single market remains to be accomplished.
That is the reason for the bringing forward by the Commission of the Maastricht Treaty. It is the classic way of doing things. When things go wrong, as they have gone disastrously wrong in Europe—its record is far worse than that of Japan and the United States, whereas we were promised the reverse—you produce, if you are an executive, particularly an unelected executive in office like the Commission, a diversion to take people's minds off the fact that the single market has yet to be completed. You use institutional measures to increase your own powers in order that people's minds are directed away from the reality. That is what happened in this case.
Ministers did not originate this proposal, and the people did not ask for it. The Commission has produced a treaty which it knows will occupy people's minds for a long time. People will argue about it and, in the meantime, partly through the treaty and partly outside it, the Commission will give itself more and more powers.
Because of the paving way in which these matters are undertaken, next week or the week after, under the Belgian presidency, there will be proposals to speed up this measure. We shall be told that in 1996, if we do
268
not progress further, we shall be left outside Europe and we shall be second class. However the £2.5 billion contribution which is taken from our Exchequer every year will not be mentioned. That is not taken into account when granting or promising us second class citizenship.
It is really a massive hoodwink; indeed, the Government know that it is. They are ambivalent about it. On occasions, in his more affable moments, we have heard statements from the Foreign Secretary like, "It really doesn't make any difference anyway. It will probably never come into effect". We also heard similar remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who doubted whether parts of the treaty would ever come into being. Then there are such statements from the Government as, "Let's get Maastricht over and get on to things that really matter". We can say that again: if they had not had the Maastricht Treaty and this nonsense in the Commission before them, they could have been getting on with the job that they ought to be doing. It is their choice to put the miserable treaty and, within the context of the debate, the miserable series of clauses that we discussing before this Chamber purely as a diversion.
Like the rest of the Committee, I am only human. I ask myself—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I doubt it!
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble and learned Lord must not spoil the impression he has made upon me by my having had the advantage of reading his biography. He should really be much more affable.
I cannot persuade myself, although I may be wrong. I joined the North Paddington Division of the Labour Party in 1935. I honestly and sincerely believe in the brotherhood of man on the widest possible scale, and in friendship with all people. I also believe in the United Nations Charter which, incidentally, also mentions "peoples", in addition to other treaties that have since been passed. But I still cannot get out of my mind the fact that there is something in having an overwhelming regard for one's own country. I do not know from whence it comes, but here it is. I do not mean it in the jingoistic sense.
I was most embarrassed two or three years ago when M. Delors was in his first full flight of office. He, after all, joined the French Labour Party in 1979, roughly the same time that the noble Baroness became Prime Minister and I stopped being a Member of the European Parliament. I remember M. Delors criticising the then Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in very adverse and, I considered, unfelicitous terms which were unbecoming to an international civil servant. Indeed, I stood up and said so, much to the consternation of some of my noble friends who wondered why I was apparently sticking up for one of my leading political opponents with whose philosophy, in those respects, I disagreed and still profoundly disagree. My answer was, "She is Prime Minister of my country". It is all very well for us in the United Kingdom to be able to criticise our own Prime Minister—as, indeed, I could, would and do from time to time—but it is not right for an

269
international civil servant to do so. I objected to it. In answer to some of' my noble friends who looked at me a little askance, I said that I would do the same thing if M. Delors attacked Mr. Kinnock.
There was a similar occurrence with Mr. Major. At the end of the Maastricht Treaty negotiations he came back to the United Kingdom and triumphantly said that we had got rid of the word "federal" from the treaty. One thing that shook me was that the Dutch Foreign Minister said in an expletive, "Britian will pay for that". I thought back 47 years to when the British Army liberated Maastricht. It seemed to me to be a little odd. I did not like it. Moreover, I do not think that any other Member of this place would have liked it.
I believe that there is a certain validity, although not in jingoistic terms, for being able to identify far more closely with a society of which one is a member, whatever functions one may perform in it. I beg the Committee not to be taken in by the diversionary tactic of bringing forward for discussion at this time, and without popular demand, the whole question of the citizenship of Europe.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: There is an old Irish saying: "If he fools you once, shame on him; if he fools you twice, shame on you".
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Brilliant! How original.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble and learned friend has lived with Maastricht for just about as long as I have. He is more learned in the law than I am but he is no more learned in life. We have listened to him for many years, so perhaps it will help him to listen to other people on matters of such importance—and I say that as one of his greatest admirers.
We were fooled in 1972 and one understands that. It is now up to us to decide whether we will allow ourselves to be fooled this year. The Chamber has no power to do anything about it; indeed, it has no power at all to kill the Bill. The only power that this place has is to pass an amendment, which will mean that the Bill will he sent back to another place (which does have the power to do something about it) for it to have second thoughts.
While I agree with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, regarding the amendment under discussion., I believe that we ought to consider how we react to all that is proposed quite separately from the individual amendments that we shall be discussing over the next two or three weeks. I do not believe that I am all that interested in the Government's reply on this occasion. They will give a similar reply to those that we have read about which were given in another place when the Bill was dealt with a few weeks ago. Moreover, all the arguments that we have heard so far on the first amendment are precisely the same as those presented in another place. I am all for doing that; by all means, let us have all views on the record. But let us not kid ourselves that we can do anything about it in a truly positive and constructive way. All we can do is pass an amendment
270
at some stage which will give those in the other place the chance to do something about it if, after second thoughts, they feel inclined to do so.
The present amendment is important in its separate way. However, I hope that the amendment which we eventually carry in this Chamber will be one on the referendum. That will mean that the other place need not take full responsibility for any change of mind that might occur. If by our actions here we can persuade them to allow a referendum to take place, those in the other place will have the power to let the people express their views.
I beg my noble friends to reflect carefully on the matter, especially those who have not been engaged in the argument as long as some of us have. We have been involved in it since the middle of the 1960s. The only speaker of all those to whom I listened who has been consistent is the noble Lord, Lord Jay. In those days when the Treaty of Rome was before Parliament, we pointed out what it could develop into. We said that if we agreed to the Treaty of Rome as it stood, we would go some way to removing the freedom of the people of Britain to govern themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, had negotiated this matter.
We were told authoritatively that it was nonsense to think along those lines. We were told that the power of people in Britain to govern themselves could not be removed as Britain had the power of veto. We were told that a vote taken in the Council of Ministers had to be unanimous. We were told that one veto could stop a measure going through. We were told all this by a government whom I supported. We were told that if it appeared that the British Parliament was to have its power removed as regards dealing with finance and other such matters, Britain could use its veto to stop that. That fooled the Chamber at the time. We believed that explanation. Some of us, however, tried to prove that there were dangers inherent in the treaty and that the treaty could lead to a loss of British power.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has said that all we are doing with Maastricht is dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s. He said that Maastricht has nothing to do with altering the process that was started in the Treaty of Rome. If that is the case, why do we need the Maastricht Treaty at all? Why cannot we use the powers that the noble Lord claims we already have? The truth is that Maastricht will confirm beyond doubt that we are prepared to give up the control that the British Parliament has to decide the policies of this country. That is why M. Delors is so pleased with the treaty.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. has said that some arguments coming from this side of the Chamber had persuaded even his own side to be in favour of the Maastricht Treaty. I suggest that it was no argument from this side that caused that about-turn. It has surprised me—this has surprised me more than anything I have ever experienced in politics—to learn that M. Delors was invited to be a spokesman at the TUC some years ago. It is well known that at that congress he hinted, both in public and in private, at the following theory. He said we

271
would never achieve socialism through Westminster but there was a good chance of achieving it through Europe. This treaty is the beginning of that process. That is why the Opposition suddenly did an about-turn on Maastricht. They are eager to be included in Maastricht because they approve of its social policies. We on this side of the Chamber do not agree with the Opposition's socialist policies. The Opposition have been consistent on this matter as long as it has suited their interests.
We on this side of the Committee have no desire to speed up socialism in this country. However, I hope we have every desire to retain our freedom to decide things for ourselves. The veto has gone, or almost gone. We have lost a great deal of the power to prevent the stress that I, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and others have said could arise. It has now been said that subsidiarity will achieve the same purpose as the veto was intended to achieve. No one knows what subsidiarity means and no one will decide what it means. However, I am convinced that subsidiarity will go the same way as the veto.
Our duty in this Chamber is to state that, although we accept the economic aspects of the Treaty of Rome that have so far been realised, we are not prepared to move that extra inch over the boundaries which take us into politics and social policies. We can prevent that. I hope I may refer to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, as my noble friend. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to push his amendment to a vote. I hope he will not do so. I hope we shall not spend time in voting on this issue.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Or speaking!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: As I have said, my noble and learned friend's frivolity on these important topics will lose him many of his political friends. I respect his judgment on legal matters but, as I have already said, we are almost the same age and we became parliamentary candidates in the same year, 1938. Our intimate knowledge of what has happened in that period is reasonably equal. I beg of my noble and learned friend occasionally to listen when someone other than himself is speaking.
I advise my noble friends by all means to air their views on these clauses and amendments as that can only do good. It can only do good to put our feelings on the record. However, we should be in no doubt that we are wasting time—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: He is leading the pack again. We are wasting our time if we think we can do anything about this measure until we reach the stage where an effective amendment can be passed which will give another place the power—the other place has the power to do something about this—to get on and do its duty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hate to intrude on family quarrels. We are debating a high and weighty series of issues. However, I am bound to say that we are doing so in a curious way. We should recall that we
272
are in Committee. We are debating amendments. Of all the speakers who have spoken this afternoon, only the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, have given detailed attention—my noble friend Lord Jay has only given attention to his first amendment and not to the succeeding amendments—to the series of amendments which is to be decided upon by any vote that might take place upon Amendment No. 2.
It is necessary to remind the Committee of what the amendments contain. Amendment No. 2 would insert the entire preamble in order to exclude a few words about citizenship. Amendment No. 8 would insert the entire Title I in order to exclude a few words about citizenship. Amendments Nos. 53 to 60 concern Article 8 in Part Two on citizenship of the union. Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others would remove the words,
"subject to the duties imposed thereby".
In contrast Amendment No. 54 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, would remove the entire article. We should decide which of these views we take.
Amendment No. 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bruce would remove Article 8a which states that,
"Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely".
It further states that action by the Council facilitating the action of the rights shall be unanimous on,
"a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament".
Article 8b gives a citizen of the union the right to vote and stand at municipal elections and in European elections,
"in the Member State in which he resides".
My noble friend Lord Bruce and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wish to take away that right. Article 8c gives citizens of the union the right to protection,
"by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State"",
when they find themselves in a state outside the union where their own state is not represented.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, wishes to remove the phrase,
"on the same conditions as the nationals of that State".
My noble friend Lord Stoddart wishes to remove the entire article and remove that entire right.
Article 8d gives citizens of the union the right to petition the European Parliament and to apply to the ombudsman. Curiously none of the amendments would take out Article 8d which would be left alone and intact if the amendments were to be carried.
Article 8e requires annual reports to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee, and unanimous approval of such reports. My noble friend Lord Bruce would take out the second paragraph. In contrast, my noble friend Lord Stoddart would take out the entire paragraph.
So far we have not made very good sense of the amendments, have we? Amendment No. 396A in the name of my noble friend Lord Stoddart would allow individuals to renounce citizenship of the union. At first sight that might seem rather attractive. However, supposing we find ourselves in Tirana and want to exercise our rights under Article 8c, will the Italian consul in Tirana say, "I'm sorry, I can't help you

273
because you as an individual have renounced citizenship of the union"? Alternatively, is my noble friend suggesting that we shall carry different passports according to whether we have renounced citizenship of the union?
Amendment No. 410 in the same group, which is the only amendment with which I have any real sympathy, has not been debated at all. That amendment is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and they still have an opportunity to speak to it.
Lord Morris: If the noble Lord read his list of groupings with more care he would see that the amendment has not been grouped with these other amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear that. I apologise to the noble Lord. His amendment is included in the copy of the list of groupings which I have; but he has exercised his undoubted right to take it out of the grouping.
We ought to have been debating the amendments. Instead, we have debated the Bill as a whole. We have repeated a large part of the Second Reading debate. I am sorry to say that we have debated it in a tone which has not improved on many of the worst misconceptions which exist about the treaty. We heard from my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney about a European superstate. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that we would be selling all that we own at the moment. He suggested that as a result of the Bill, we would have to adopt a 48-hour maximum working week. I remember some of my more enthusiastic comrades at the time of the 1975 referendum taking me by the collar, shaking me and saying "If you vote 'yes' in the referendum you will be voting for conscription in this country". That has not happened and would not happen.
We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that we would be voting for the disappearance of the monarchy and of the House of Lords. We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that the duties which would be imposed are as yet unspecified, although it is very clear from the text of Article 8 that the duties are those imposed by the treaty and none other.
No, there are practical and principled reasons why the amendments will not do.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. It is very generous of him to do so. The duties are unspecified. They may well be imposed by the treaty, and I maintained that they were imposed. I spoke very specifically to my amendment. They are indeed imposed by Article 8. They are not imposed by Article 189, which is not mentioned in the new treaty as it comes up to Article 8. Those duties are there. They do depend on the treaty. If the noble Lord could specify them, he would help the Committee enormously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not for me to specify them. If they are not specified in the treaty, they are not duties; and they are not covered by Article 8.
274
On the issue of sheer practicality, I suggest that what we have in Article 8 is all gain arid no loss. There is no loss whatsoever of national identity by the addition of citizenship of the union. I am a Londoner of half Scots and half London descent. I am proud to be a Londoner, and I am proud to be a Scotsman; but I would also be proud to be a citizen of the union and I would be proud to be a part of the movement which would lead us in that direction.
My noble friend Lord Parry talked about most countries moving away from the concept of federation. My noble friend Lord Kennet effectively answered that by pointing out that the federations which have been dissolved are those which were imposed by force of arms. The one overriding anxiety which I have as we reach the end of the 20th century is that we may end up with far too fragmented a number of nation states with no means of acting together. In my view, the European Community and the European Union give us an opportunity to act together to prevent the disastrous fragmentation of the international community.
It is the duty and responsibility of the Government to get its own legislation through. I do not say that we shall support the Government on every amendment. I certainly cannot seek to persuade my noble friends Lord Bruce, Lord Jenkins, Lord Stoddart or Lord Parry to support us in this matter. However, I say to all of my other noble friends that the Labour Party Conference last year said that this may not be the best treaty we could ever have, but it is the best treaty that we have. These amendments would be wrecking amendments to the treaty and the Committee should reject them.
Lord Parry: As my noble friend sits down, will he answer this question? Is it not true that the United States of America fought a bloody civil war, in which so many people were killed that the numbers are indeterminate, and was the union not enforced, historically, by force of arms?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that I was being kind in ignoring my noble friend's suggestion that the United States of America was about to break up. I see that he takes the matter far more seriously than I did, and I apologise to him for that neglect.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Nobody could say that Members of the Committee do not care about these matters. There has been an expression of opinion from all sides this afternoon.
I thought that the most extraordinary of all came from my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who said that he was not at all interested in the Government's reply. I do not blame him for saying that. He said "It will be the same as we have heard before". I can only say to my noble friend that it would be slightly alarming if it were different. Then he made a speech on the referendum and the disadvantages of the Community. He gave virtually a Second Reading speech, which had very little to do

275
with the amendment, which relates to citizenship. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, brought us back to the amendments.
There is nothing like such opaque subjects as citizenship or sovereignty to generate anxiety, agitation and heat. That is not surprising. That has been the case this afternoon. Members of the Committee, quite rightly, feel very strongly about these matters. However, I suggest that it is important to keep our feet firmly on the ground, to keep our flights of fancy well in rein and to consider the facts.
The amendments which we are discussing together, and which have been grouped for convenience, all aim to delete the provisions of Part II of the Maastricht Treaty, which is the citizenship chapter. Members of the Committee have tabled amendments which, seriatim, pluck out from the treaty one by one the various articles which confer rights—not duties—on those who are citizens of the union.
The citizenship chapter of the Maastricht Treaty establishes for the first time the concept of citizenship of the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, said that one could not be a citizen of anything other than one's country. I do not agree with him. Citizenship is a relationship with something or some organisation. One can be a citizen of a city. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that one can be a citizen of the Commonwealth or a citizen of the world.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor put the matter very clearly at Second Reading when he said:
"Union citizenship does not override national citizenship. On the contrary, it is dependent upon it: one cannot be a citizen of the Union without being a citizen of a member state. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, put it well when, on 17th February, he expressed sentiments which I wholeheartedly echo:
'By nationality I am a Scot. I am proud to be a British subject. By conviction I am a citizen of Europe and I see no conflict at all between those three propositions'."
My noble and learned friend went on to say:
"It is also important to remember that there is a distinction between the concepts of citizenship and of allegiance. We owe allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. We will continue to do so when we are citizens of the Union. Citizenship of the Union differs from national citizenship, particularly in a monarchy like that of the United Kingdom. Here the citizen is also a subject. Maastricht will not make us subject to anyone other than Her Majesty and we shall not owe any allegiance to the European Union—".[Official Report, 8/6/93; col. 714.]
It is worth reminding ourselves exactly what the chapter establishes and what it does not. The first point to remember is that we already have a relationship with the European Community by being members of it, as my noble friend Lady Elles pointed out. The term "citizenship" puts into words what is actually happening now. It adds no new duties but it gives additional rights.
The chapter introduces four new rights and reconfirms some old ones. The new rights which it establishes are, first, the right to vote and to stand for election in municipal elections—that means local elections—and in elections to the European Parliament in whichever member state a citizen may reside.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will the Minister confirm absolutely that "municipal" means local elections? As I understand it, in some continental countries "municipal" refers to all elections. It is important that we are assured that "municipal" means only local elections and not elections to Parliament.
Earl Ferrers: I can confirm that it refers to local elections. It does not refer to parliamentary elections.
Secondly, the chapter establishes the right to consular protection in states where the member state of which a citizen is a national is not represented. Thirdly, it establishes the right to petition the European Parliament. Fourthly, it establishes the right to apply to a European ombudsman. That is what the chapter does.
The rights to freedom of movement and residence which are laid down in the Treaty of Rome are reconfirmed in Article 8a. They are explicitly made,
"subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect".
Those limitations include the grounds of public policy, public security and public health referred to in Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome. They are clarified further in the rights of residence directives which entered into force in June 1992 and which give rights of residence to European Community nationals who are not economically active but who have sufficient resources not to become a burden on the state of residence.
Article 8b establishes a right for European Community nationals who are resident in another member state to vote and to stand as candidates in local and European elections in that state. I confirm again to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that general elections will be unaffected. Our citizens who live abroad will also benefit.
Article 8c confers a right to reciprocal consular facilities for unrepresented nationals. There does not seem to be much wrong with that.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Will my noble friend clarify that? The access to consular activities given to us by the Russians in Iraq is not subject to the Treaty of Maastricht. We can have such arrangements without the Treaty of Maastricht.
Earl Ferrers: If my noble friend will contain himself for a little, he will understand the point I make.
One has reciprocal consular activities for nationals who are unrepresented. For instance, if a Member of the Committee were to lose his passport on a trek through the Central African Republic, he could go to the French consulate in Bangui and need not go to the British High Commission in Lagos, which is some 700 miles away. I am sure that that would be a substantial benefit to those noble Lords who may, erroneously, be so distressed at the prospect of the Maastricht Treaty that they might wish to go away on holiday. It would also apply to others too.
Lord Moran: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Perhaps he will assist me on the matter about which he has just spoken. It is my understanding that international law allows a state to protect an individual only if the individual is a

277
national of that state. Therefore, does it follow from that that the arrangements that he describes will work only if European citizenship defines one's nationality as being European?
Earl Ferrers: It means that there are consular facilities available to people of different nationalities where they find that their own consular arrangements are not available. The consular arrangements available to a British person would be, for instance, through a French consulate where there was no British consulate.
Article 8d confers the right to petition the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the Community's field of activity and which affects the person concerned directly. It also gives union citizens the right to take to a European ombudsman complaints of maladministration in the activity of the Community institutions or bodies (except the European Court of Justice and the court of first instance). Those are additional measures of democratic accountability which we can enjoy, which we in the United Kingdom supported and for which we pressed at. Maastricht.
I have dealt with the rights that the chapter confers. Now let us consider what simply is not there.
Article 8's reference to,
"rights and duties conferred by this Treaty",
(i.e. the Treaty of Rome as amended by subsequent treaties) is not a reference to specific duties. Neither the Maastricht Treaty nor previous European Community treaties impose any specific duties on individuals. The only duty which an individual has is to obey the provisions of Community law which impose obligations on individuals. Usually European Community laws concern governments, public bodies and companies. Nowhere is there any duty of the kind which is normally regarded as associated with national citizenship, such is—as has been suggested—military service. The Community does not have carte blanche to extend the rights which are mentioned in Article 8 either.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Earl refers to duties. Article 812) refers to the duties. Will it be possible for the Commission to bring forward a proposal which among its recitals would include having regard to Article 8(2) of the treaty? It proposes this or that duty for a citizen or a group of citizens. Is it possible for the Commission to produce such a proposal authenticated by reference in a recital to Article 8(2) about the duties imposed by the treaty?
Earl Ferrers: That is covered by Article 8e.
Article 8e provides a power to add new rights, but subject to two safeguards. They are unanimity in the Council and ratification in each member state. Those are both necessary before any extension of rights can enter into force. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said that this was a precursor to a federal state. I think that that is not so. He said that we would have new duties imposed upon us and that they were creeping duties. That does not follow.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was anxious about the dangers of seeking to suppress nationality. No such attempt is being made.
278
Citizenship is not a substitute for nationality; and nationality remains unaffected. My noble friend Lord Tebbit was worried about his passport; he said that his passport described him as British and not English. 1 t still will do so, and that demonstrates that nationality is not changed by the European citizenship. One has to be a British national in order to be a Union citizen. One does not stop being a British national when one takes on Union citizenship. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was also worried about European passports. It is not a European passport, it is a European format. It remains a British, French or Spanish passport which is issued by, and only by, the national authorities concerned.
Then my noble friend Lord Beloff was worried and made a comparison of 'he Union with the United States of America. He said that in the United States the individual travels on a United States passport, not a Californian one. He is quite right. The difference is that British individuals will travel on British passports, not European ones. I think that that demonstrates that the European Union is not a superstate.
My noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, were worried about what Chancellor Kohl said about a United States of Europe. He said that a United States of Europe would mean that we would be like Texas or California. That is not the case. In this Europe we shall remain to a large extent nation states with our own identity and separate administrations in many areas.
On another occasion, the Chancellor said:
"We have not laid the foundation stone with Maastricht for a European superstate which reduces everything to the same level and blurs the differences. Rather we have committed ourselves to a Europe constructed on the principle of unity in diversity. We must do everything we can in future to shape European policy in such a way that people can identify with it more easily. They must see that it is concerned with their interests and not with a technocratic Europe, far removed from the people".
So said Chancellor Kohl. Thus, he aspires to a European Union in which people's sense of national identity would be as strong and as real as ever.
It is important to realise that Union citizenship will not take the place of national citizenship. That is made clear in the agreement called Decision on Denmark, which was agreed by all 12 member states at the Edinburgh European Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that the Danish were opting out on citizenship; but the Danes have not been given an opt-out to the citizenship provisions. The decision on Denmark agreed at Edinburgh simply clarified two points: that Union citizenship does not supersede national citizenship, and that no new rights can be granted without ratification by each member state. We agree on both accounts and the same applies to the United Kingdom.
We cannot make provision—as the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Onslow would wish—for British citizens to renounce citizenship of the Union because the additional benefits of citizenship are made available solely by virtue of a person being a British citizen. An individual can of course choose not to

279
exercise those additional benefits, if he so wishes. My noble friend Lord Onslow said that he did not want to be a citizen of Europe; he wanted to remain a loyal subject. My noble friend can remain a loyal subject and he need have no worry about that. European citizenship does not affect the relationship of British subjects to the Crown and, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said at Second Reading, citizenship must not be confused with allegiance.
Thus, at the end of this debate which has gone on for three hours and 20 minutes, what is all the brouhaha about? The citizenship provisions confer on United Kingdom citizens some new rights. But they are beneficial rights. They impose no new duties. I reckon that that is 30-love, and I suggest that the Committee does not accept the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jay.
Lord Jay: I have the feeling that this debate should come to an end. I therefore confine myself briefly to the amendments and Article 8. First, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to say that duties were not mentioned at all under Article 8. It may be that I misunderstood him. However, there is no question whatever that they are so mentioned. I have quoted them once today already and the words are:
"Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby".
Surely, the noble Lord does not deny that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I say for the second time that anyone who reads the article can see it. There is no reference to any specific duty, only a reference to rights. Love-15, as my noble friend would say.
Lord Jay: The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is still in his place. He was a little inclined to say that we should not carry on the discussion much longer, not just on this amendment but the whole debate, because the British Parliament is in the position of holding up the whole of western Europe. I must remind him that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, told me a fortnight ago from the Front Bench that Germany has not merely not yet ratified the treaty but is not expected to come to a decision before September at the earliest. So there is no hurry about the matter. But if the noble Lord is so full of impatience, he should address his impatience to the constitutional court which I believe is to be found in Bonn.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, rightly said that there must be a reciprocity between rights and duties, whether it is citizenship or anything else. No one disputes that so far as I know; and we certainly do not. Incidentally, there is no reciprocity of that kind in the treaty because the treaty specifies the rights at great length, as we have been told a good many times. But nowhere does it specify the duties. In his last speech, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, went some way to remedy that and give us an idea of what are the duties. But they are not specified in the treaty or the Bill.
My noble friends and I essentially contend that if the new citizenship is to be conferred on every British
280
subject, that subject should be clearly informed both of the rights he is acquiring and of the duties imposed upon him. He should be given a free choice, whether he thinks, in those circumstances, and knowing both sides of the exchange, that it is worth his while. That is a matter of ordinary, individual liberty and the free choice of the citizen. It is because we feel strongly on that point, whatever the amendments may say exactly, that I think it would be right to proceed now to a decision on this issue.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before my noble friend sits down, there is a point that I should like to raise with him. It arises from remarks which were reported by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He referred to remarks made by Chancellor Kohl. Can my noble friend confirm that Chancellor Kohl also said:
"The European Union Treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European union which within a few years will lead to the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of following the last war: the united states of Europe"?
Lord Jay: I referred to that in my Second Reading speech.
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 242.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Bauer, L.

Monson, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Moran, L.

Beloff, L.

Morris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Onslow, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Parry, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Cross, V.

Derwent, L.

Peel, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dormer, L.

St. Germans, E.

Erroll, E.

Salisbury, M.

Galpern, L.

Sandys, L.

Glenamara, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Smith, L.

Harlech, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Jay, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Swansea, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kagan, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Whaddon, L.

Liverpool, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Middleton, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Aylestone, L.

Addington, L.

Banks, L.

Airedale, L.

Barber, L.

Aldington, L.

Barnett, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Belstead, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Blackstone, B.

Alport, L.

Blatch, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Borthwick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor, V.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brightman, L.

Attlee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

281

Burton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Butterfield, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Henley, L.

Cadman, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hood, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hooper, B.

Carnock, L.

Hooson, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carter, L.

Howe, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B

Howell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hughes, L.

Chesham, L.

Huntly, M.

Clark of Kempston, L

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Inchyra, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Cockfield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Kennet, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Kimball, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kintore, E.

Cranborne, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Lockwood, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Long, V.

Davidson, V.

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lucas, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Desai, L.

Lyell, L.

Downshire, M

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Dudley, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Eden of Winton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elibank, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Elles, B.

Mancroft, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marlesford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Milverton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Flather, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Foley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Moyne, L.

Geddes, L.

Mulley, L.

Geraint, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Gilrnour of Craigmillar. L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Goold, L.

Norrie, L.

Goschen, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Granard, E.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Grey, E.

Palmer, L.

Gridley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Pender, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hacking, L.

Peston, L.

Haig, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Plumb, L.

Halsbury, E.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Prentice, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Prior, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Reay, L.

Harris ot Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

282

Renton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Renwick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Richard, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Russell, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Thomas of Swynnerlon, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Thorneycroft. L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thurlow, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Tordoff, L.

Savile, L.

Torrington, V.

Seccombe, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Seear, B.

Trumpington, B.

Selborne, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shackleton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Shannon, E.

Varley, L.

Sharples, B.

Vestey, L.

Sherfield, L.

Vivian, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Waverley, V.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Weatherill, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stedman, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Stewartby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Stockton, E.

Wynford, L.

Strafford, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to according.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, after ("(k)") insert ("The Preamble (except the words "including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence, thereby reinforcing the European identity"").
The noble Lord said: I hasten to assure the Committee that the purpose of the amendments is to seek explanation only. It is not proposed to make an extraordinary exposition on them. The Committee may be familiar with the original draft of the Treaty on European Union as agreed in Maastricht on 10th December and incorporated in a memorandum issued on 13th December by the conference of representatives of the governments.
In the common provisions (which are applicable to all parts of the treaty) at Article B the following words will be found:
"to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy which shall include the eventual framing of a common defence policy".
In the same document, under Article D in the foreign policy part of the treaty, appear almost the identical words:
"The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the European Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
It seems as though the participants in the conference wanted to emphasise that point. They gave it double emphasis: first in the general provisions, under Title I; then in that part of the treaty relating to foreign policy.
Coming to the treaty itself—it will be remembered that it was initialled on 7th February 1992--the words have been slightly changed. In Title I it states:
"to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and

283
security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
Again, those words are repeated in Article J.4 in the treaty:
"including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
I ask the Minister who is to reply why it becomes necessary to incorporate in a treaty a provision about where something might lead. It seems to be an extraordinary provision to have in a treaty. One could use it in regard to almost anything. It might lead to palm trees being planted in Pimlico. Who knows? What is the relevance of the words:
"which might lead…to a common defence"?
Quite clearly it has no particular relevance to the immediate future. It is not something upon which the Community is required to act now. What is the significance of:
"which might in time lead to a common defence"?
I do not believe that that provision would have much impact on British law if ever it came to be interpreted in British law. The significance ought to be expressed.
In the final version of the treaty (even though there is no indication that the preamble was discussed prior to 10th December) those words are carried forward into the preamble as well. It is the third time that the point is emphasised. It says:
"RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
That is the third time that the phrases appear in the treaty.
I seek information. Indeed, I am anxious to know why it is necessary to repeat three times those almost identical words. It sounds like a triple whammy; or "game, set and match", as the Prime Minister put it on his return. It is the more remarkable in view of the fact that, as I quoted, it is now included in the preamble.
The Prime Minister had some observations to make about matters that appear in preambles. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he agrees with what the Prime Minister said on 2nd November 1992. In The Times of Tuesday, 3rd November 1992 appears the following report:
"Describing himself as the biggest Euro-sceptic in the Cabinet"—
I am very glad to welcome him to the happy band—
"the Prime Minister reassured loyalists and waverers about British sovereignty and warned them not to be put off by 'Euro-waffle' in the Maastricht Treaty preamble which had 'no legal force whatsoever"'.
That is contrary to advice that we have received so far with regard to the preambles. Indeed, in the interpretation of the law as applied by the European Court, both the preambles and the accompanying recitals have quite a significance in interpreting these matters. Why are those words stated three times? Why should there be a provision for something which might lead to a future event? Why should something be incorporated into the preamble which, according to the Prime Minister, is Euro-waffle and has no legal force? I beg to move.
Lord Cockfield: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, desired to know why that phrase was stated three times. Presumably it follows the principle laid down by the bellman in The Hunting of the Snark: I say it once, I say it twice, I say it thrice: it must be true.
It should be remembered that we are dealing with a preamble to the treaty. To put the matter crudely, the preamble comes clean; in other words, it states that the common defence policy might, in time, lead to a common defence.
If the draftsmen of the treaty had followed the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and had said nothing, the noble Lord would be the first to complain that the matter had been kept secret and that he had not been told. Now that the noble Lord has been told, he has nothing to complain about.
Lord Butterfield: I am a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I listened with great admiration to his recent speech about the shape of our society.
Last Friday at St. Thomas' Hospital, just over the river, we were very privileged to hear a lecture by the noble Lord, Lord Owen about the situation in Bosnia. He made clear beyond doubt that he was very anxious that the European Community should have an organisation which, through NATO, could show miscreants who are concerned with ethnic cleansing and matters of that kind that there was a possibility of a European force. He hoped that that force would consist of volunteers. Volunteers could serve for a period of up to five years for a force which would be ethical and would stand up for what all noble Lords believe in: namely, a just means of defending those who need help and who are being attacked by gunmen.
The Earl of Onslow: When the Bosnian crisis broke out, Mr. Poos stated, "Now is the time of Europe". I can conceive of no greater damage to the cause of Europe than the chaotic and hopeless result of foreign policy initiatives that has occurred in Bosnia. Unless we get it right, there is no point in doing it all. We have got the matter so hopelessly and completely wrong that it would be better not to do it. We end up by making fools of ourselves.
If ideas of common defence are put into treaties on the offchance that the matter might arise, it is a waste of time and hot air.
I am a great advocate of co-operation. Military and foreign affairs co-operation has worked without the need for treaties. The Gulf War was a perfect example of great co-operation. No treaty was involved. There was no preamble and no pontification by Mr. Poos. There was a failure to sell ammunition by the Belgians to ourselves, for which they have since apologised and there was a notable absence of the German general staff. Co-operation in defence and foreign affairs can be achieved on a very sound, ad hoc basis, as has been proved. If we try to tackle something like Bosnia, we get ourselves into a ghastly and awful muddle, which is self-evident.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, spoke about a European force and the hope that it would be formed by volunteers. I am moved to ask whether that force might also be formed of conscripts, in accordance with the duties of citizenship, as dealt with in Amendment No. 2. Under what flag would that so-called force, which might intervene in the future of Bosnia, operate?
Lord Stewartby: I take modest comfort from the inclusion of those words because they are in contrast to the way in which the first objective deals with economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency, which is a commitment for those who have signed up to it.
I would be extremely uncomfortable if a common defence were to be included in the second of the objectives. However, the contrast between the first of the objectives, where the ultimate objective is spelt out specifically, and the second objective, where the matter is left open only as a possibility, gives me some comfort. There is a conscious distinction between the two.
In practical terms, it would be extremely difficult for the Community to frame a common defence policy, let alone to organise a common defence. That view has been reinforced by recent events. Nevertheless, the fact that a common defence is only here mentioned as a possibility, puts it into a different category from the approach to defence policy as a whole, as embodied in the treaty. I find that that fact is an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
Lord Morison: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has rightly drawn the Committee's attention to the effectiveness of the excellent ad hoc co-operation between countries at the time of the Gulf War.
The noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, has drawn our intention to the inherent nonsense of an 11 language common defence force. That figure may be greater because the Irish give commands in Irish, which is not an official EC language; and countries like Finland may join, which would further complicate matters.
I should like to support the amendment, to which have added my name, for other reasons. What does the curious phrase "reinforcing the European identity" mean? Everybody who is born and bred in Europe has a European identity. Why is it necessary to state the obvious by repeating those words? Do those words reflect the habitual arrogance of the Eurocrats who hold that Europe equates to the EC and that the EC equates to Europe, and that the Swiss, Norwegians, Poles, Czechs, and so on, are not really Europeans and therefore should not be considered to be part of the European identity; or is it more subtle? It may be a device to encourage people to think of themselves first and foremost as citizens of the European Union and less and less as citizens of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, when speaking to the last amendment, said he wants to be a citizen of a wider Europe. What is that but nationalism on a larger scale? Who would one be combining against? Would it be against resurgent Islam (and there are
286
people in Europe who wish to do so) or against the Japanese or the Americans? Protectionist French industrialists often sound as though they would like to go to war with one or other of those countries, or even with the New Zealanders, who have the temerity to shelter that deadly naval vessel "Rainbow Warrior" in their waters.
If a common defence policy existed, what would the position be if the Falklands were to be invaded once more? Would we be in a position 10 liberate the Falklands? Supposing our defence partners—the Spanish or Italians—objected to that, or our forces were engaged side by side with the Greeks fighting the Turks in the Aegean, which is another almost certain outcome of a common defence policy.
Those are worries which cannot lightly be wished away. It will be interesting to hear, although we will be. speaking of defence in greater depth later, what would have been the position in the Falklands if the Maastricht Treaty had been in force at the beginning of 1982.
7 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs took extensive evidence on the foreign affairs implications of the defence pillar. I find it a matter of great concern and amazement that the Select Committee on Defence has not, as I understand, taken any evidence from the Ministry of Defence on the implications for our defence policies and resources of the eventual forming of a common defence policy, still less the practicality of the proposals for WEU's new role in the Community.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs has taken evidence. I wonder why it has not been thought necessary to take evidence from the professional view of those responsible for our defence. Is it yet another example of the acceptance of commitments without any detailed and realistic consideration of the resources available? I find it extraordinary that there has been no Select Committee consideration of what the mandatory move towards a common defence policy will mean.
Full evidence was taken on the political implications of the interlocking responsibility of the WEU, which has no forces of its own, the CSCE which also has none, and NATO; but none on where the troops are to come from and what will have to give way for British forces to be available for the Community. The Memorandum in the Bill of course makes it clear that the Bill does not cover co-operation in the sphere of foreign and security policy because they do not give rise to Community rights and obligations at this stage. That is true today, but under Article J.4.6 of the treaty a report on the success achieved in furthering its objectives—in this case a move eventually to a common defence—is required by 1996. It may well be brought forward by the Belgian presidency.
Meanwhile, the European Parliament, whose powers have been increased significantly by the treaty, has passed by a large majority a resolution that it must have considerably enhanced control over foreign and security policy. On 4th June NATO decided that the

287
alliance could undertake peacekeeping under the CSCE or the UN. According to the FCO memorandum to the Select Committee,
"As the WEU develops, the European members of the Alliance will, we hope, be able to make a more effective and coherent contribution to common security and defence".
What are the implications for this country of all those commitments in terms of men and resources? If we had another Bosnia today, where would we find the troops? We have had no debate on defence in this House for many months, and such a debate might expose only too clearly that we still do not have the resources to fulfil our commitments. In my view it is specious to argue that we can only influence events in Europe by being inside it, if in fact we still have nothing to put in the pot—no military muscle with which to exert that influence in the defence field. Indeed, I wonder whether we even have the resources to send a proper military staff to those new WEU/CSCE/NATO offices in Brussels. But perhaps we are expecting the other members, especially the non-belligerents, to supply the staff which will make the plans.
I shall find it easier to be convinced that we know what we are doing if I can feel that the professionals, who will have to make the defence policy work while fully protecting our national interest, have had their views heard by the country and their concerns registered. The pillar which Maastricht created may be intended to protect our independence of action. But I am deeply concerned lest we fail to face, and face openly, the consequences in terms of resources. We ought not to commit the services to do the impossible so that we may be perceived as being good Europeans.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have listened to other Members of the Committee talking to Amendment No. 3. Although at this stage I do not want to go deeply into the matter it contains, nevertheless I should perhaps reinforce what was said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, regarding the reference to reinforcing the European identity.
I cannot understand why, in the preamble, we should say,
"including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence, thereby reinforcing the European identity".
It is not good enough to say that we need a defence policy which will reinforce the European identity. After all, we need alliances outside Europe and we need to make them by bilateral means. I would hate to think that under the preamble we were taking away our right to make bilateral arrangements with other countries.
In Europe, together with the United States, we have had an adequate defence policy which has lasted a long period of time. Indeed, I suggest it has done far more than the EC—perhaps it is the only thing—to keep the peace in Europe. People refer to the European Community as having kept the peace in Europe. It has done nothing of the sort. NATO was established in 1949 and it is NATO, presumably with the umbrella of the enormous fire power and forces of
288
the United States, which has kept the peace in Europe. Anything that would undermine that would worry me considerably.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell me exactly what those words mean,
"thereby reinforcing the European identity",
and give me and the country an assurance that it will in no way undermine the defence arrangements through NATO whereby we continue to have the support and protection of the United States in Europe.
Lord Thompson of Monifieth: On the previous amendment on citizenship I maintained a trappist silence in the face of some provocation and, I am glad to say, some flattery in terms of quoting remarks I had made previously. I should say from these Benches that, since we wish to see the Maastricht Treaty ratified as quickly as possible, consistent with reasonable debate, we do not wish to take up time in general. However, on defence it is important to put on record the position of the Liberal Democrats on these Benches.
I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, could have taken some comfort out of the rather curious language of the preamble which he inserts into his amendment. For our part, we regard Title V of the Maastricht Treaty as certainly a step in the right direction. But for us it is not the decisive leap forward for which we were hoping and which we believe is still necessary for an effective European presence on the world stage.
One of the greatest weaknesses of the current arrangements is the lack of any effective co-ordinated military muscle on the part of the European nations that form the European Community. The provisions of the Maastricht Treaty fall well short of the goal of a common defence policy. The Henry Kissinger remark from the past of, "When I want to speak to Europe, who do I 'phone?" is as true today as it was when he made it. We on these Benches have come to the opposite conclusion to one or two of the Members of the Committee who have spoken of the present tragic situation in Bosnia. It seems to us that that reflects the lack of a coherent position on the part of the European Community that would enable them to have an effective foreign policy and, arising out of that, make an effective defence contribution to the maintenance of peace.
There are divisions among members of the European Community; some are more Atlanticist than others, for example the French. The final outcome has been a compromise. The so-called double-hatting of the WEU means that that organisation has become the defence arm of the Community while operating within the NATO framework. For our part, we welcome this arrangement as a short-term solution but feel that it needs to proceed further. In the long term there is a need to develop a fully-fledged Community defence identity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had not intended to intervene but for reasons that the Whips will understand perhaps my intervention will not be totally unwelcome. My view on all of these matters has

289
always been that eventually all armed forces throughout the world will wear red berets. I mean blue berets—and preferably blue berets rather than blue helmets. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that the intervention of Europe in Bosnia, despite the valiant efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has been very seriously weakened by the lack of any structure and the confusion of responsibilities as between NATO, the Western European Union and the European Community. As a personal view, I wish much of that to be resolved by greater powers being given to the United Nations rather than to any of those three organisations. On the other hand, if any of the provisions in the preamble to the treaty as drafted are to be adopted—although they do not come into the Bill—I hope that they will be adopted in the spirit of seeking to simplify the lines of command rather than complicate them.
Baroness Elles: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that the situation in Bosnia cannot be resolved by any group of nations outside and that it must be for the people of the former Yugoslavia to resolve their internal problems? Should we not be paying great tribute to the British and French forces who have gone there under the blue beret in order to bring humanitarian aid to that part of the world and have saved so many thousands of lives?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall refrain from commenting on the wider issue of Bosnia because we are debating in Committee the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Without referring to the noble Baroness, I think it would be better if we were more disciplined than we were in the previous debate.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I believe that my response to this debate falls into three sections. I should like, first, to deal with the probing questions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He inquired about these matters last year by manner of Written Questions to my noble friend Lord Caithness. Quite correctly, he raised the difference in wording on defence in the common provisions between the earlier draft and the final version of the treaty. This was not a substantive point during the Maastricht negotiations. The change was one of a number of minor adjustments that were made to achieve the internal consistency of the wording of various provisions of the treaty. There is no significance in the change that has been highlighted by the noble Lord. However, for the interest of other noble Lords in the Chamber perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lord Caithness also gave a Written An3wer recorded in the Official Report on 24th February 1992 (at col. WA!). He repeated the same answer on 91.h March 1992 (at col. WA41) to a similar question on the changes and why they were made. Obviously that has not satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, since in 1993 he returns to the charge—and not for the first occasion.
So that there is no doubt whatsoever about it, perhaps I may identify what has happened. The
290
Treaty on European Union was agreed at Maastricht on the 9th and 10th December 1991. The first post-Maastricht text was received in this country on Friday, 13th December 1991. Copies were sent to Parliament on Monday, 16th December. That text contained no preamble and referred in Article B of the common provisions to the following union objective,
"to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy which shall include the eventual framing of a common defence policy".
The text was sent to the jurists for tidying up to ensure consistency between the provisions of the new treaty and to agree minor technical alterations where it was unanimously agreed that clarification was needed in order effectively to represent the intentions of the heads of government at Maastricht.
The treaty signed on 7th February was received in its post-signature text form in this country on 14th February 1992, and copies were delivered to Parliament on Monday, 17th February. In that text the above reference in Article B of the common provisions had been changed to read:
"to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
That brought Article B of the common provisions into line with the corresponding article in the CFSP chapter, Article J.4.1, which had been listed as Article D.1 in the 13th December 1991 text. That text: remained unchanged. The preamble was added to the February text and stuck to the J.4.1 formula, including the words,
"the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
What has happened is that all three references have been made in similar form. That is what I believe to be important. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asks: why three times? I do not believe this to be so strange, although I do not have The Hunting of the Shark to refer to. It is fairly clear in the treaty as a whole that citizenship, economic and monetary union and other matters are also covered three times. They are summarised in the preamble and listed in the common provisions before being covered in detail in the separate chapters, of which Title V (covering CFSP) is the relevant one in this case. I believe that that makes clear why it has been done and that it is consistent. I am sure that the noble Lord would be one of the first to jump up to tell me if some part of it is inconsistent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the explanation that she has so kindly given. But she omitted to say who had added the preamble. She did not say whether, in view of the fact that it was incorporated in the preamble, she agreed or disagreed with the Prime Minister's description of the Maastricht Treaty preamble as a lot of Euro-waffle.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: The noble Lord anticipates my next paragraph. I was just coming to that. He must be a little patient since he and his colleagues have taken time to put this matter. The Prime Minister was undoubtedly referring to the fact that the preamble did not create any legal rights or

291
obligations. It does not. If I examine the aspects of Amendment No. 3 moved by the noble Lord, the preamble is an integral part of the treaty but it neither creates obligations nor confers rights. As the noble Lord is aware, it recites the purpose of the treaty and the background against which agreement is reached, just as the preambles to the Single European Act and the Treaty of Rome do.
Much of the language in the preamble is obviously taken from previous preambles, or indeed quotes from the treaty itself. But when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister talked of the preamble he was putting the preamble in the treaty's context. A preamble can be used if necessary to aid the interpretation, but since on this point the preamble merely uses exactly the same words as the treaty, it is hard to see that it was necessary. But it is there; it is consistent. And I am glad that it is consistent, as otherwise we would have yet another reason for debate.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 are not necessary. The eventual framing of the phrase in the preamble which, as I mentioned some moments ago, is repeated in Article J.4 of the treaty is a point which a number of Members of the Committee have taken up in this short debate. I would say to all of those who mentioned the very vexed and tragic situation in the former Yugoslavia that I do not believe that these two amendments are the right place in regard to which to debate Bosnia. I am quite prepared to talk about it at the right moment, but I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. However, it would be right just to say to all those who have commented why I believe that this is a sensible move, as my noble friend Lord Stewartby, mentioned. It is, as he said, tentative. It can be no more than tentative because of the way in which Article J in Title V of the treaty is dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and to the ideas that he has for the future. That may come about, but it will come about only with unanimity not simply in the Community but far wider. Certainly, nothing that comes up in these amendments or indeed in the treaty, let alone in the Bill, commits us to the path about which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, was speaking last week.
My noble friend Lord Onslow emphasised the need to get any common defence policy right. With regard to joining with fellow nations, we went into the Gulf War after long and detailed discussions with the United Nations as well as with our allies in NATO. Some of our allies in NATO are also our partners in Europe. What is certainly happening is that there is a coming together of views, not always identical, within Europe.
What is vitally important is that we realise that issues with defence implications, which is what a number of Members of the Committee have referred to, will not be subject to joint action procedures. This is covered under Article J.4.3. The Maastricht Treaty makes it absolutely clear under the common foreign and security policy that it is the Western European
292
Union, not the twelve, which will be responsible for elaborating and implementing decisions with defence implications.
I can assure the Committee that nothing in the Maastricht Treaty would compel the UK to commit forces to military action against our will. Nor does anything in the treaty, or indeed in the Bill, stop us from taking our own national action if that is what is needed. In referring to the Falklands, although many other nations supported us, we took our own decision after consulting with other nations. That would still be the case under the Bill when it becomes an Act, and under the Maastricht Treaty.
The Earl of Onslow: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I pop up again. She said that there was a coming together of European views. How does this take into account the German constitutional point that German troops are not allowed to serve abroad and the built-in neutrality of the Irish Republic, together with the future guaranteed built-in neutrality of Austria, Sweden and Finland, the new applicants to the European Community?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I would love to go into considerable detail and answer my noble friend, but I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 are the place to do it. We shall have a substantive debate on common foreign and security policy under Title V of the Treaty. I shall do my best to answer questions that are put in the debates today and those put at other stages when we reach that point.
My noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked about conscripts and volunteers. We have made it absolutely clear that in our armed forces we want good, sound volunteers. No one is going to force us back to conscription. Nor are other countries hoping that they will proceed with conscription for very much longer. But that is a matter for their national decision. Nothing in the Bill will force us to go down the path to which my noble friend was referring.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, in speaking to the amendments which he tabled, was really objecting to European identity as much as anything. That disquiet underlay what he was saying. I have already answered his point about the Falklands. Perhaps I may say to him that this country will not give up the need for independent action if that is needed. But in this very complicated and complex world we are a good deal better to go with allies into some conflicts than we are to go alone. Those allies will be our NATO allies and our allies in the Western European Union. I really do not think that the fears expressed by the noble Lord today and on other occasions are with foundation. I believe that they are without foundation. We will be fully able to protect our position and that of our defence forces and to take our own decisions.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth made some other comments about common defence policy which, I believe, are better taken up in the main debate on common foreign and security policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, talked about alliances. I understand well what he means by that. The point about our policy through NATO or through the Western European Union is that we are

293
not limited to taking a decision simply with our partners in NATO or simply with our partners in the Western European Union. Sometimes we take our decisions in collaboration with two out of a number of those partners in NATO or the WEU and we shall continue to do so. There is no way in which the words that are the subject of Amendment No. 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, or indeed of Amendment No. 7 which is taken with it, force us to have only alliances with the European Community if in time the European Community were to decide to have some common defence policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is right that we have not yet taken a great leap forward. I do not believe that the time is yet right to take that great leap forward. Therefore, while he may be disappointed by some of the content of the treaty, I believe that this phraseology which was debated long and hard by European colleagues in Maastricht is the right way to go. It is laying a foundation but it does not force us to take a certain direction. What it does is to make sure that we go on considering this, as surely we must if we are to continue to preserve the peace in Europe and to try to help the people of the former Yugoslavia also to find a peace. No one could be more conscious of that than I.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rightly said that he hoped that there would be "blue berets" rather than "blue helmets"—and we understand why he put it as he did. I believe that the sooner that we are able to make all our United Nations troops "blue beret" troops rather than "blue helmet" troops, the better it will be; but that will come about only when the United Nations has been able to carry out its mandate in many places, such as Somalia, and actually disarm the warring factions. That is one of the hardest things to do in today's world.
My noble friend Lady Elles spoke of the co-operation between and excellent working together of the British and French forces. I say to her, yes, that is so: but we have also had excellent co-operation with Spanish and other European forces. The co-operation has not only been between the British and the French although they have taken most of the headlines.
After my explanations in answer to his specific questions, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will not press the amendment. However, should he decide to do so, I must advise my noble friends that his amendment should be rejected.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: Before my noble friend sits down, may I say to her that I found her reply somewhat disappointing? It did not deal with the points that had been raised. Therefore, she will understand if I say that I shall want to take up these matters with her after the adjournment for Dinner, but that I do not wish to speak now in the Dinner adjournment—
Baroness Trumpington: No!
Lord Tebbit: I am sorry, this is a Committee stage, I understand (if I am correctly informed about the procedures on Committee in this House) that noble Lords may speak after the Minister if they are not
294
satisfied with the reply. I just wanted to let my noble friend know that I shall be doing that after Dinner in order that she does not think that the debate has finished.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not think that the noble Lord is exactly right. I think that we have to bring the debate on this amendment to a conclusion before I adjourn the House during pleasure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No!
Lord Morris: That is quite wrong. The procedure in Committee is quite clear. There is no reason at all why noble Lords who have not spoken, or indeed who have spoken many times previously, cannot speak to this amendment. It is up to the Government at 7.30 p.m. to move the Motion that the House be now resumed as they said that they were going to. There is no reason at all why noble Lords should not rebut the Government's position if they so wish.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House be now resumed
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I had already sat down and was not intending to detain your Lordships any longer, but I wanted to answer in full the points that had been put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, which I hope that he feels that li did. From watching his face carefully, I think that he was reasonably satisfied. It may be that, because some of the points raised by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth and others were not fully answered because they went far wide of Amendments Nos. 3 and 7, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is not satisfied. I get quite used to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, not being satisfied. I do not think that anything that I say in this debate will ever satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, so we might as well get used to the idea that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is not going to stand by the agreement, which I understand has been made, that we should proceed in an orderly manner.
This was an amendment for information, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was satisfied. If the noble Lord was satisfied, I am sure that he will now tell your Lordships and perhaps the arrangements which I understood had been agreed upon can be proceeded with, but I am not an expert in these matters. I am a new girl in the House, and and I give way to the better knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have no means at my disposal in my position on the Back-Benches to instruct or to do anything to anybody other than speak for myself. Therefore, I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit or for that matter for the noble Lord, Lord Morris. From my point of view—and I must say that it is only from my point of view—I accept the answers which have been given to me by the noble Baroness, which was the purpose of moving the amendment. I thank her for them. However, I reserve the right to return once again to her curious difference with the Prime Minister as to what

295
constitutes Euro-waffle and what does not. I may be constrained to return to that at a later stage; but, in the meantime, and subject to the approval of my noble friends and the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sexual Offences Bill
7.35 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short but worthwhile Bill that enjoyed support on all sides in another place. Its sole purpose is to remove the common law presumption that a boy under the age of 14 is incapable of sexual intercourse. The Bill is freestanding and was skilfully piloted through another place by my honourable friend Mr. Jerry Hayes. It had a smooth passage there, and I hope that noble Lords will feel similarly kindly disposed towards it.
The Bill implements a recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its 1984 report on sexual offences. The committee could see no justification for retaining the presumption and all who commented on the issue supported its abolition. The measure was first included in an unsuccessful Private Member's Bill, the Sexual Offences Bill 1990, which again received all-round support but fell through a filibuster in another place by Mr. Ken Livingstone, who objected to some aspects of the Bill's provisions concerning kerb crawling.
The ancient presumption that a boy under the age of 14 is incapable of sexual intercourse is not in accord with the facts and perhaps it never was. It clearly raised Lord Chief Justice Hale's eyebrows over 300 years ago. It belongs to the family of legal fictions that exist to protect the young, but developments in recent years in criminal law and in sentencing policy have removed any need for it and, in abolishing it, we would do some good and no harm.
The principal practical effect of the Bill would be to allow some of the 25 or so boys under 14 who are convicted each year of indecent assault to be convicted of rape if that, rather than indecent assault, is what they have done. That is surely desirable. It will allow justice to be done to the victim of the crime to whom the lesser charge is a grave insult. Rape causes terrible distress. That distress is compounded if victims find that their assailants cannot be charged or convicted of the offence which they have actually committed. Victims' confidence that the law properly recognises their ordeal will be improved and their recovery may be assisted.
The Bill will not affect the sentences to which the perpetrator may be liable as indecent assault already attracts the maximum allowed for boys under the age
296
of 14. This Bill is not the place to consider sentencing. It is limited in scope, and sentencing is, in any event, a matter for the Government. However, I understand that the Government are working on proposals for a new sentence to provide education and training in a secure setting for juveniles who persistently offend. More importantly in this particular context, they are also considering the adequacy of the scope of detention under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. At present, as far as 10 to 14 year-olds are concerned, such detention is available only for offences of murder and manslaughter.
The Bill will also apply to a number of other serious sexual offences which are, thankfully, relatively rare and where only a lesser charge is available at present.
The Bill extends to England and Wales only. In Scotland, there has never been the presumption of incapacity and the question of similar arrangements in Northern Ireland is for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will no doubt wish to consider it in due course. I commend this modest but valuable Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Lucas.)
7.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am pleased to extend from this Dispatch Box our welcome to the Bill, which has been ably moved, and which was, as the noble Lord said, ably piloted through another place by Mr. Jerry Hayes. It is limited in scope, as the noble Lord will admit. It clears up one anomaly in the definition of the ages at which certain offences can be committed, but it leaves untouched a number of related anomalies. For example, there was considerable debate in another place about the phrase in the Bill, "whether natural or unnatural". If we had the choice, most of us would wish to see the phrase removed from the Bill, but we are conscious that this is a Private Member's Bill and that there would be a risk to it being carried if amendments were accepted in this House unless the Government were able to promise the measure further time.
There could be a case for the Government to make such a promise, because the Minister responding on the Bill in another place acknowledged that this was a measure which should have been, and could have been, a Government Bill, thereby providing more space for other Private Member's Bills which could not be government Bills. If the Minister were to be good enough to indicate that time would be allowed for an amended Bill to be considered in another place, we might consider amending and improving it.
The noble Lord referred to the failure of a previous Bill because of the opposition of Mr. Ken Livingstone on one particular point. I had not intended to raise the matter until the noble Lord mentioned it, but I have to say that the Bill's progress in another place on 30th April was considerably extended by a long debate, of which I have read every word, much of it unrelated to the Bill. Without seeking to offend the principle of comity between the two Houses, I say only, without expressing an opinion, that the view was expressed that a number of honourable Members contributing

297
to the debate on the Bill, especially on Third Reading, spoke much more widely than had been envisaged in the framing of the Bill in order to delay and inhibit the passage of the following Medicines Information Bill. They succeeded in that purpose. It is a shame, however, that that should have happened to such a nice Bill as the one before us.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill without reservation. It creates no problems for us. It is highly desirable that it should speed on its way to the statute book. I would say only one thing in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, about our attitude to Private Member's Bills. I approach with the utmost caution any suggestion that Bills are not amendable in this House because of timetable problems in another place. Once we accept that argument, we are saying that Private Member's Bills can be scrutinised in the other place only and not in this House.
Given the fact that we are a revising Chamber, it would be an extraordinary departure from our constitutional robe were we to accept any such view. Having said that, perhaps I may repeat that I welcome the Bill. It is an admirable measure. I hope that it will soon be on the statute book.
7.44 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas on introducing the Bill. Its enactment would mean a fairly modest reform, but it would remove a provision which at the moment seems absurd. It brings the law up to date and provides victims with reassurance that the law recognises the seriousness of the offence which has been committed against them.
Sexual offences are peculiarly nasty and distressing and it is important that the law serves victims properly. Victims of the offences which the Bill covers are already protected from the full glare of publicity following implementation of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 which gives statutory anonymity to victims of specified sexual assaults. That Act resulted from successful Private Member's legislation and the Government are grateful that this measure is being taken forward in a similar way.
I am consequently glad to be able to assure your Lordships of the Government's support for my noble friend's Bill. It comes to us from another place where it received wide support. I hope that it will receive similar broad support in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Lucas has admirably described what the Bill aims to do, and I do not propose to elaborate upon that, except to say that some young boys are undoubtedly capable of committing rape. I cannot believe that anyone would oppose that unfortunate, but simple, fact being acknowledged in the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will realise that I cannot speak for another place regarding its timetable. Equally, I would never advise your Lordships that your Lordships could not look at any
298
Bill in a way that your Lordships see fit. However, I remind your Lordships of the time of year and of the limited amount of time left in the parliamentary timetable.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Astor, for their contributions. It is clear that there is support on all sides of the House for the measure. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1993 Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1993 Criminal Justice (International Co- operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order 1993
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 13th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these orders play a vital part in our defences against drug trafficking and other serious crimes. Attacking the profit motive, through strong confiscation and money laundering laws, is one of the most effective ways of fighting serious crime. The increasingly international environment in which criminals operate makes international co-operation vital in tracing and confiscating the proceeds of crime across national boundaries. The Government are determined to do everything possible to ensure that crime shall not pay.
In most respects the present orders are similar in form to a number of previous orders made under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. They contain all the safeguards of their predecessors. We are making our domestic confiscation powers available only to countries which we know can reciprocate. An overseas confiscation or forfeiture order will be enforced in the courts here only if it has been properly made; if it is in force and not subject to appeal; and if the subject of the order has either appeared in the proceedings or has been given the opportunity to contest the order. Similar safeguards apply in respect

299
of external restraint orders, and third parties affected by an external order have the right to challenge it in the courts.
The main purpose of the new orders is merely to add to the lists of countries already designated. The orders will bring the number of countries with which we can co-operate in tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds and instruments of drug trafficking to almost 100. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the designation of Denmark and Luxembourg. It is particularly gratifying when we have the opportunity to designate an EC partner. Those countries are two of a number which we are designating on this occasion by virtue of their ratification of the 1988 UN convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Other countries are being designated because we have recently concluded a bilateral confiscation agreement with them or extended the scope of an existing agreement.
The order under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 is innovatory. It enables us for the first time to enforce external orders for the forfeiture of instruments used in crimes other than drug trafficking—the aircraft used to transport a kidnapping victim, for example. The countries whose "all crime" forfeiture orders we will now be able to enforce are set out in Schedule 2. Schedule 1 adds to the list of countries on behalf of which we shall now be able to enforce drug trafficking forfeiture orders.
The network of multilateral confiscation conventions and bilateral agreements, which we have been helping to build up in recent years, has reached impressive proportions. But they will be of no value unless the confiscation system established is seen to work in practice. It is therefore a matter of some satisfaction that around £5 million is currently under restraint here by virtue of bilateral confiscation agreements and that our first international confiscation was successfully completed last October. That case involved part of the proceeds of crime of the Colombian drug trafficker and Medellin Cartel member, Jose Rodriguez Gacha—proceeds which had been salted away in bank accounts here in the United Kingdom.
The Gacha case demonstrated clearly what can be achieved once a bilateral agreement and the designation process have been completed. I am sure that more successful cases will follow from the further designations in the orders. I commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That, the draft orders laid before the House on 13th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we thank the Minister for bringing forward these orders, although we cannot congratulate him on his Spanish accent. The Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place considered them in four minutes flat. I believe that we shall do better than that, even though we may not wish to.
Members on these Benches entirely support the orders, as we have in previous years. I understand that the condition for an extension of the list of countries
300
to which the orders apply depends on suitable bilateral and legal arrangements within the countries concerned. We express the hope that in future years the orders will apply to an increasing number of countries and that the Government will devote all their efforts to that end.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.52 to 8.30 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 9 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 9, after ("Titles") insert ("I (except Article B)").
The noble Lord said: Once again we return to the fray after a rather truncated 55 minute dinner break. I take this opportunity to make a plea to the Chief Whip to allow us in future a full 60-minute hour, provided that that is allowed under the terms of the treaty.
The purpose of Amendment No. 10 is to remove from the endorsement of Parliament Article B of the treaty. That sets out the objectives of the Union— economic and social cohesion, economic and monetary union, a common foreign and security policy, citizenship of the Union, which we have discussed at great length earlier today and which we shall probably discuss further later on, justice and home affairs, and last but by no means least, the maintenance of the acquis communautaire body of EEC law. I say "EEC" because it is still the EEC until such time as the treaty is ratified.
It would be foolish and vastly ambitious of me to try to deal with economic and social cohesion, economic and monetary union, a common foreign and security policy or justice and home affairs this evening, especially as we are to deliberate those matters at considerable length and in considerable depth over the next few days. However, the acquis communautaire is a different matter since, so far as I have been able to ascertain, it does not appear elsewhere in the Bill except in Article C, which is the subject of Amendment No. 11 where the phrase is alluded to in a much more cursory fashion.
In contrast, those who peruse Article B are left in no doubt as to what the framers of the treaty intend. The acquis communautaire is not only to be maintained in full—and I stress the words "in full" —but is also to be built upon. That contradicts totally the assurances that we have been given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary among others that subsidiarity will become the main focus and guiding light of the Community once the treaty is ratified.
It is true that it need not necessarily affect future matters to be the subject of subsidiarity, but it will make it extremely difficult for anything which has already been handed over to the competence of the Community to be devolved back to member states.
When I asked a supplementary question of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor he replied:
"The new article",
that is, the article concerning subsidiarity,
"will apply from the date of ratification of the treaty … However, the principle … may well",
and I ask the Committee to note the words "may well",
"actuate proposals for changing the existing law. It could well be that existing laws might be shorn of some unnecessary detail",
not all unnecessary detail but some unnecessary detail,
"as a result of a desire in the Community as a whole to simplify matters".
He went on to say:
"it would be in accordance with public opinion not only here, but in other member states as well".—[Official Report, 17/6/93; col. 1665.]
From everything that I have learned, I believe that the noble and learned Lord was absolutely right on that point.
The point is that it seems obvious that there is an essential conflict here between the bald statement in Article B that the acquis communautaire will be maintained in full and the sincere desire of Her Majesty's Government, and no doubt the desire of some of the other governments in the Community, to devolve matters back to member states.
I do not wish to go into a long discussion on subsidiarity this evening because the Committee is thin. However, this question must be addressed. It will arise again, but I think that we should hear something about it this evening. In case it is thought that only those of us who are somewhat inaccurately called Eurosceptics—most of us know Europe well and love it, but I suppose that Eurosceptic will do as a convenient form of shorthand—have doubts or suspicions about the acquis communautaire, perhaps I may quote a distinguished individual who is noted for his strong views in support of the Community; namely, that noted financial and political journalist, Sir Samuel Brittan, writing in the Financial Times yesterday. He talks about the "pernicious doctrine of the acquis communautaire," and says that under that doctrine:
"the Community holds on to all the powers it has been given and asks for some more".
That is what we are up against. If the treaty is to be ratified with those words included, it seems to me that the application of subsidiarity to matters which have already been handed over to the competence of the Community will be almost impossible. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply on that point. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): The effect of Amendment No. 10 would be to include within the scope of the Bill the Common Provisions (Title I) of the Treaty on European Union except for Article B setting out the objectives of the Union. The
302
Common Provisions establish the structure of the treaty. They are needed in particular to explain the pillared structure under which the Union embraces the Community on the one hand and the common foreign and security policy and the justice and home affairs pillars on the other.
The Treaty of Rome had no common provisions because it was only about the Community. The Single European Act had common provisions because it dealt not only with the European Community but also with European political co-operation. But to include the common provisions in the Bill without qualification would be to introduce a legal anomaly. We need to legislate domestically only to incorporate those EC provisions which can have direct effect in the UK or those provisions under which the Community measures may be adopted with that effect; that means predominantly the provisions of Titles If, III and IV plus the protocols. That is why the Bill as it stands includes only Title I (as one of the "other provisions" of the treaty) "so far as they relate" to Titles II, III and IV.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson,rightly says that Article B mentions so many of the matters with which we shall deal in more detail or have dealt already in some detail. But he quite rightly points out that the one which has not been spoken to, and perhaps will not be spoken to, is the acquis communautaire. The acquis communautaire means, as I believe the noble Lord rightly interprets it, the provisions of the Community treaties and all Acts adopted so far under those provisions. It is a shorthand way of referring to the body of Community law and practice to which new members sign up when they join.
In the case of the United Kingdom, that was done by Article 2 of the Act of Accession 1972 which states:
"From the date of accession, the provisions of the original treaties and the Acts adopted by the institutions of the Community shall be binding on the new Member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in those Acts".
I have to say that there is no real, simple English translation of the acquis communautaire. The particular indent of Article B was amended at the United Kingdom's insistence to avoid any implication that co-operation outside the Treaty of Rome should be brought eventually within it. The review under Article N(2) will only consider the extent to which such co-operation may need to be revised to become more effective. No commitment has been made to bring all that within the Community.
The common provisions introduce substantive treaty articles to be found later in the treaty. But the final part of Article B explicitly states that,
"objectives of the Union shall be achieved … while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 3b of the Treaty".
Even in the present instance, I think that that is a useful reminder of the central position of subsidiarity in Community decision-making. Indeed, it was in reflecting on that central position that my noble and learned friend made the remarks to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred. With that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: In the absence of any other contributors to this mini-debate, I do, of course, intend to withdraw the amendment; indeed, I never intended to do anything else. The whole purpose was not to divide on so many major issues but simply to clarify them. I thank the noble Viscount for what he said. However, I am not convinced that he has fully clarified matters. I am not for a moment worried about the lack of translation for acquis communautaire. It is a perfectly simple concept. We all know what it means, unlike, for example, subsidiarity, which is still enshrouded in every sort of mist.
No doubt when we discuss subsidiarity at a later stage we shall return to the matter under discussion. I still maintain that there is a definite conflict here between what is set out in the treaty and the Government's very worthwhile and praiseworthy intentions of applying the principles of subsidiarity as widely as possible. As I said, we shall probably return to the matter before long. Therefore, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 9, after ("Titles") insert ("I (except Article C)").
The noble Lord said: I should point out that I shall be referring to the grouping list of today's date (and not yesterday's) that I understand has been made available to Members of the Committee. The situation can be slightly misleading. With the leave of the Committee, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 13, 14, 50, 190-200, 202-210, 217, 218, 226-230, 252-267, 269, 309-316, 318-325, 392 and 415.
I must request the indulgence of the Committee a little while cross-referring to various amendments. Speaking from the Back Benches on such an extremely complex Bill exposes one to certain physical disabilities as regards sorting out papers. Those who happily occupy the Front Benches are somewhat assisted by having a desk in front of them. Therefore, if there is any delay in dealing with papers, I shall be most grateful for the indulgence of the Committee.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 11. It relates to Article C of Part One of the treaty. That can be found on page 2 of the very excellent Maastricht Treaty and Prospective document issued by the British Management Data Foundation. It has been made available to Members of this Chamber and also to members of the public generally. The foundation is most kind to do so. It describes the Treaty of Rome as amended by the treaty under consideration. It facilitates easier examination of the effects. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that we are somewhat indebted to the foundation for doing something which, in our opinion…and I say this with the utmost good humour…the Government ought to have done to enable the public better to understand what is involved. Indeed, it might even have assisted certain members of the Government who subsequently admitted that they had not read the treaty.
As I said, the first amendment deals with Article C. With the Committee's permission, I should like to read from that article. It says:
"The Union shall be served by a single institutional framework which shall ensure the consistency and the continuity of the activities carried out in order to attain its objectives while respecting and building upon the 'acquis communautaire'"…
which, of course, has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It continues to say:
"The union shall in particular ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of external relations, security, economic and development policies. The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency. They shall ensure the implementation of those policies each in accordance with its respective powers".
I should like to deal, first, with that outrageous aspect. When I read those parts of the proposed treaty, I wondered what costs would be incurred. The Commission and the union (the Community) take on board many heavy responsibilities which will involve a good deal of activity that will be most costly. I had it in mind…as I trust have most noble Lords…that out of the Consolidated Fund we are paying on average £2.5 billion net every year to the European Community. I do not like continually to remind the Committee about that fact; but I know how very fussy Members of this Chamber are in matters of public finance and also as regards the public sector borrowing requirement. I am trying to insinuate myself into the approval of noble Lords for having reminded them of the correctness of their point of view on such matters.
I am very disappointed. I wanted—as I am sure we all do—to have some idea as to what the costs would be of all the extra activities that are being undertaken, especially during the year under review. Certain activities are already taking place in anticipation. Certainly after ratification the Commission can be relied upon not to delay unduly in carrying out its already planned activities which it has assumed in advance that we shall approve. In fact, the Select Committee of this place, which as we all know carries out such sterling work, is already basing most of its current examinations of witnesses in connection with various aspects of Community affairs on the assumption that the treaty will be ratified. Everyone is a bit ahead on this, except of course the Commission. That bothers me.
The preliminary draft budget for the year 1994 was due for publication on 15th May last. It is now 22nd June. I am informed that it was published on time as one would normally expect. However, I am troubled that it is impossible to obtain a copy from the Printed Paper Office, no matter how hard I try. I am sure that Members of the Committee appreciate that some of us on both sides of the Chamber like to study such matters as cost effectiveness and possible avenues of excess expenditure and areas where good value for money is perhaps not being obtained.
I should have thought that in the light of our debate—it has been known for a long time that this debate was about to take place in this Chamber—data would have been available. I can tell the Committee in advance that if the 1993 draft budget as approved is any guide, there is bound to be certain expenditure

305
that is completely out of control. There is bound to be some expenditure on the objectives of the treaty which has been widely overestimated as members of staff have been increased, probably unnecessarily, and money spent on things that will not happen. I am normally quite amiable about these matters but I must protest at not being able to obtain a document which, from my point of view, is vital—I talk not only as a politician but also as an accountant—to assess the cost of these measures as regards the British taxpayer. I hope that the situation will be remedied.
The rest of the amendments deal with the acquis communaufaire to which I have referred. Article E states:
"The European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice shall exercise their powers under the conditions and for the purposes provided for, on the one hand. by the provisions of the Treaties establishing the European Communities and of the subsequent Treaties and Acts modifying and supplementing them and, on the other hand, by the other provisions of this Treaty".
I pause for a moment to examine the article more closely. There ca n be no doubt that the provisions of Maastricht, if carried out within the timetable put forward by the Commission—and contained in some parts of the treaty itself—will mean an extra load on all of the institutions. Incidentally, I do not exclude from that the Court of Justice.
If one looks through the extra responsibilities of the Court of Justice and the kind of actions that may or may not be brought before it by the Commission, or indeed by member states as a result of the new provisions of Maastricht, I venture to suggest that the Court of Justice, as at present constituted, will be hopelessly undermanned from the point of view of judges, legal staff and others. One has only to look at the areas of likely dispute within the Maastricht Treaty to appreciate that it is unrealistic to envisage the institutions remaining unchanged.
Indeed, whatever illusions the Committee may have about the Bill, its aim is to enlarge the powers, the extent and the functions of the institutions. It has nothing to do with the people of Europe at all. This debate is primarily concerned, by agreement, with the institutions. I should perhaps mention, before I reach the main part of the detail that I wish to discuss, that it is not my intention today to discuss amendments which relate under Titles III and IV to the ECSC and to the Atomic Energy Community. One can eliminate those for our purposes from the discussion and concentrate on those institutions which affect the European Economic Community proper.
Today we shall consider the institutions as such and some of their functions. We should consider whether we believe that the treaty really tells us the whole picture as it is likely to emerge or whether some of it is just window dressing. I refer in the first instance to the powers to establish an ombudsman for Europe whom a citizen shall have a right to approach, through an MEP, as regards any matters at issue between himself and the institutions.
Has it occurred to anyone that for an ombudsman to he effective in these circumstances will require organisation on a fairly hefty scale? Our own parliamentary commissioner here—Britain has a total
306
population of some 40 to 50 million people—incurs heavy costs. Europe comprises over 325 million people. The idea of an ombudsman being able to exercise any function that is meaningful on behalf of an individual citizen makes the imagination boggle. I do not believe that the provision for the establishment of an ombudsman is at all realistic. A considerable organisation would be needed to make the position effective or even to do the job on the scale of that of the British parliamentary commissioner.
I turn now to the Parliament. I am not sure how I can deal with that and at the same time retain the good will of my noble friend Lady Elles—I hope I may call her my noble friend—with whom I have an amiable relationship. She and I were both MEPs and I hesitate to say anything that would offend her. The European Parliament is a sham parliament. It is powerless to do anything. One has only to read through the English translations of the proceedings that have become available over the past six months or so—in particular the debates dealing with the European budget and expenditure control, which are supposed to he under the Parliament's supervision—to realise that most of the people contributing to those debates do not have the remotest clue what they are talking about.
Lord Bethell: The noble Lord says that the European Parliament is a sham parliament arid incapable of doing anything. Is he really prepared to stand by that? Will he think about it., consider the powers that the European Parliament has and ask himself whether the Parliament is a sham parliament and entirely incapable of doing anything?
9 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Darlington: I shall certainly do that. I can perhaps best illustrate what I say by acquainting the Committee with how the European Parliament operates. There can be nothing more illustrative than that. The European Parliament is not frightfully well attended in the first place. The National Consumer Council produced a good study on the European Parliament a couple of years back. The document revealed that the attendance was poor and the expenses high—I do not budge from that—and that salaries and expenses are higher than those attributable to a British Cabinet Minister. I do not resent that. It is a matter for those concerned and I wish them well. But let us consider what they have to go through. In this Parliament—I include this Chamber in that term—we still have a right to send Bills back to another place for consideration even though we do not possess power in the sense that the other place quite rightly has it.
We examine a Bill and its precedents in varying degrees of intensity and application. At the end of the matter we decide either that we will not vote on it at all and pass no opinion, we absent ourselves, or we decide to go through the Content or Not-Content lobby. One votes for or against. There is a certain effect in that. For example, if, in the course of the next few days, Members of the Committee were minded to vote for any of the amendments affecting the Treaty of Rome which are contained in the Maastricht Treaty,

307
the amendment would have to go back to the other place for a rethink. It would then come back to us and we would decide whether to accept the verdict of the other place. Once again, we go through either the Content or the Not-Content lobby.
Let us consider what happens in the European Parliament. I shall not go into great detail. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be relieved not to have the responsibility of thinking about any of the detail of this Bill, and I do not blame him. The European Parliament may go through one of the following procedures.
The first is the consultation procedure. That is a very nice job, one in which a delegation is selected by the Parliament, in part by the political groups meeting in the bureau, or sometimes in the party bureau. It is decided which form of delegation to send to the Council for Conciliation. I have been there myself a couple of times in connection with conciliation proceedings and consultation procedures relating to the budget. Therefore I know what happens. One turns up at the Council headquarters. One has a good talk with them. One puts one's case. Sometimes they will give way, sometimes they will not. Occasionally, in order to reward one for having gone there at all they may make a slight concession. That is what happens in the consultation process.
Then there is another procedure, called cooperation, which involves a more active role on the part of representatives of the European Parliament. Then there is a co-decision procedure. If the Committee wishes I shall certainly describe it. First, I should like to describe the co-operation procedure under Article 189c of the Maastricht Treaty. This is what happens.
The European Commission makes a proposal. The European Parliament formulates and delivers its opinion on the proposal. The "common position" of the Council is adopted by qualified majority vote, or the Council of Ministers communicates its common position to the European Parliament. Thus, the British Prime Minister attended the European Parliament on 16th December 1992 to convey to the Parliament the common position reached by the European Council in Edinburgh. Then a number of courses are open to the European Parliament. It can approve the common position by qualified majority within three months. It can express no opinion within three months. In either case the Council of Ministers adopts the measure. Alternatively, the European Parliament proposes amendments to the common position by an absolute majority, which it must do within three months of being informed by the Council of Ministers. Alternatively, the European Parliament rejects the common position of the Council of Ministers by an absolute majority of its members. In the latter two cases the European Parliament forwards the results of its deliberations to the Council and to the Commission.
If the European Parliament has adopted any action other than those I have described, the European Commission is required to reconsider its proposal within one month and then resubmit the re-examined
308
proposal and its opinion on any amendments of the Parliament which the Commission cannot accept. Within three months the Council of Ministers is required to adopt the Commission's re-examined proposal, assuming that the Parliament has not acted. The Council may adopt the proposal at that stage, either by qualified majority vote or by unanimity, if the European Parliament has rejected the Council's common position, the Council of Ministers wishes to adopt the European Parliament's amendments which have not been accepted by the Commission, or the Council of Ministers wishes to amend the re-examined proposal. Alternatively the Council of Ministers does not adopt the proposal within three months, whereupon the proposal is deemed to have lapsed.
That is very different from voting Content or Not-Content. In short, it involves a considerable contortion, with which I am sure the Members of the European Parliament are well familiar.
A noble Lord: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Do not interrupt. It is boring enough without interruptions!
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sorry to annoy the noble and learned Lord opposite but these are matters which cannot be skated over without being examined, or in some cases without being listened to. They are quite difficult and complicated.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Why should the noble Lord assume that none of us knows anything about the matters to which he is referring?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord. In matters of this kind he has certainly achieved a reputation which is considerably in excess of the self-admitted ignorance of some Ministers of the Government. I pay my tribute to him.
There are these other procedures: assent, information, and, finally, there is the budget. All those procedures are complicated. They are not as simple, as direct, as transparent or as effective as ours.
If Members of the Committee believe that those procedures are effective I invite them to take a look at the papers which are available at intervals from the Printed' Paper Office. For example, there is a translation of the proceedings which take place in the European Parliament and are reported in the English language. I cannot be fairer than that.
I do not believe that those of us here, who are so impatient that they do not want to hear detail, are in a very good position to pass judgment on the detail which lies at the root of this Bill, and much of its obscurity. It would be unfair if I were to exclude the European Parliament from other matters. If there is any doubt about the value of the European Parliament in these matters—they are a matter of great importance—I draw the Committee's attention to the debates in the European Parliament of 14th September 1992; that is, two days before Black Wednesday.

309
At that meeting of the European Parliament which was presided over by Herr Klepsch—I believe that he is a Christian Democrat with considerable affiliations on a loose basis with the Conservative Party—he was asked by a Mr. Blaney for a ruling under Rule 56 of the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Blaney stated:
"I am speaking on behalf of my political group; we wish to say that at the present time and for some weeks past we have all been amazed and dismayed to find the President of the Commission participating in the French referendum campaign. We find it contradictory when we recall that only a few short months ago after his brief intervention in Denmark during their referendum campaign the Commission President subsequently issued an apology".
The matter was again referred to by Mrs. Ewing who is not entirely unknown in another place and, I believe, is of repute in this Chamber. She referred to exactly the same issue. In referring to the matters complained of by the particular Member, she stated:
"There was certainly a long-standing tradition, as you will be aware, Mr. President, that Commissioners were neutral. They were servants of every Member State equally. They claim to be a college …That means they speak for everybody, every Member State. It is really a fairly new development that Commissioners are breaching this long-standing honourable tradition of neutrality and descending into the arena that they are meant to have left behind them".
Members of the Committee are familiar with reports which have appeared in the press of partisan intervention, sometimes by the President of the Commission himself. I refer now to the attitude to that issue by the responsible Member of the Socialist Group who replied to the request made by the Green Group.
Mr. von der Vring, speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group, in the presence of the leader of the British Labour Group of the European Parliament, stated:
"Mr. President, I do not agree. The majority in this Assembly do not want a politically emasculated Commission but would like to continue to have Commissioners who are politically committed…We do not want a neutral institution, but this Parliament has made it clear that it regards the Commission as Europe's future government".
According to the chairman of Parliament, the request for any statement upon the matter was rejected.
That is the attitude of the European Parliament, although not necessarily of all Members. I do not presume to speak for all Members. However, it is the prevailing view of the European Parliament that the Commission is Europe's future government.
Lord Bethell: The noble Lord really must not make such an assumption. It is quite incorrect to say that the European Parliament or the Commission see themselves as the future government of Europe.
Lord Vinson:It is not incorrect at all.
Lord Bethell: It is absolutely incorrect. Perhaps the noble Lord will stick to what he knows about—his knowledge is considerable—and not make assumptions about the European Parliament.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Bruce of Donington: I made no assumptions. I referred to what is said in the report. I examined the report and did not read any dissent from that view subsequently. If any European Member of the Parliament had strong views about the matter he or
310
she would have taken the opportunity to dissociate himself or herself from the ruling. I shall not pursue the point.
Lord Plumb: The noble Lord has given me an opportunity to dissociate myself from the remarks that he makes. I have sat with a good deal of patience listening to a diatribe about a European Parliament which is a very different institution from the one to which you had belonged when you left in 1979. Having said that, the Members of the European Parliament are very grateful to you for the work that you did on their behalf prior to that particular time.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The noble Lord must refer to other noble Lords in the third person and not in the second person singular.
Lord Plumb: You referred to—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It is "he referred".
Lord Plumb: Thank you. The noble Lord referred to the role of the European Parliament through the co-operation procedures and totally ignored the responsibility that the European Parliament has. The noble Lord referred earlier to the role of the Commission. Who does he think is responsible?
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Trumpington: I am told that one cannot have a debate before the Question has been put and the amendment moved.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had not finished. What we have just heard was a speech, not an intervention, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, should be allowed to conclude, then we can put the matter. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was out of order.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful for the continued indulgence of Members of the Committee. In reward, I shall immediately sit down after trying to make the few points which I hope commended themselves to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): Is the noble Lord moving the amendment?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I have no intention of taking as long as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, or going into such detail. All I wish to do is to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench what "union" means. It seems to me fundamental and to go to the core of the treaty.. Funnily enough, I find no difficulty with the expression "Union of the peoples of Europe". That is a concept of friendliness, co-operation and loving thy neighbour, to which I have no objection whatever.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Onslow: The noble and learned Lord is having the time of his life, intervening from a sedentary position in a loud and boisterous way, in the same way as he did at Sunningdale in the early 1920s. We were both at the same school.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: All I wished to do was to say, "Hear, hear!", which I thought was perfectly in order, from whatever position.
The Earl of Onslow: Let us try to stop this little exchange. It seems to me that the question of what "union" means is of fundamental importance.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister says that the whole point of union is to stop the centralisation of Europe. Others, including the German Chancellor, have said that it will lead to the ideas of the French Revolution becoming common to Europe. I do not know about Members of the Committee, but I remember that we have a square called Trafalgar Square and a station called Waterloo. When the Grenadiers troop the Colour, they wear bearskin helmets in remembrance that the whole disastrous adventure was brought to an end not a million miles from Brussels, which was then being defended by the Germans and ourselves. I do not like the idea that the French Revolution should be the basis of the union of European states.
In a recent speech Chancellor Kohl quoted Dr. Adenauer and said:
"We remember what Konrad Adenauer said in his memoirs: 'In my view the European nation-states had a past, but no future. This applied in the political, the economic and the social sectors. No individual European country was able to guarantee its people a secure future on its own strength"'.
The meaning of the word "union" is of fundamental importance. If its meaning is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister says, I suppose one could hold one's nose and say, "Let the people have a referendum", and hope that they vote it down, and still not mind if they do not. If, however, it is a union along the lines proposed by the Euro-federalists, I think we have a duty to fight strongly for our independence, our national identity and our own future. There are two fundamental differences.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am a little puzzled as to the amendment to which the noble Lord is addressing his remarks.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: He is just showing off!
The Earl of Onslow: The noble and learned Lord yet again from a sedentary position murmurs that I am showing off. I am almost prepared to plead guilty to that, but it seems to me that under this series of amendments on the institutions of the Council, the Commission and Parliament, this Chamber is a perfectly legitimate place to raise the subject of what we mean by the "European union". We have not had a satisfactory answer and I sincerely hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to give us one.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, before the noble Earl sits down, it would be helpful if Members of the
312
Committee could refer to the specific amendment they are addressing. I refer not only to the noble Earl. Otherwise we shall all be in a state of tremendous confusion. In addressing issues affecting institutions, one could allude to almost anything, but that cannot be the purpose of sensible debate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether I can help the noble Lord. As I understand it, we are debating Amendment No. 11. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 certainly refer to Articles B and C of Title I, which both begin with the Union setting itself certain objectives. According to those two articles, the Union is very much in the picture and my noble friend Lord Onslow is correct to address them.
Baroness Hooper: I feel compelled to respond to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in introducing his amendment and the group of amendments that is involved. I feel I have to point out to the noble Lord that he is, frankly, out of date.
It is now some 14 years since he served as a Member of the European Parliament. I choose to address my remarks to the institution of the Community concerned as the European Parliament because I was a Member of the European Parliament. I was privileged to be elected in the first directly elected, democratically elected, international Parliament in the history of the world. I am totally amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, should feel that an international Parliament should have the same sort of rules and procedure as this place has in order to be understood in this country. I feel that that says a lot about the people who are opposed to the treaty. Indeed, in my view, the very criticisms that the noble Lord makes justify the Maastricht Treaty, which, after all, is aimed at correcting the democratic deficit and giving some teeth to the European Parliament in enabling it to have a greater say over European Community legislation. We all know that national parliaments feel that they are very burdened by the scrutiny tasks that they are expected to carry out in relation to European legislation. So why not allow a directly elected European Parliament to carry out that task?
The treaty also intends the European Parliament to have powers to act further as a watchdog over that terrible beast the European Commission in order to implement the decisions of the Council of Ministers as well as to operate the Community's budget. I do not want to delay the proceedings further; but I felt that it was absolutely necessary to correct the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, unfortunately gave to this Chamber.
Lord Tebbit: For the comfort of those who are intending to follow this debate in detail, I should say that I shall address some of my remarks particularly to Amendment No. 191. Other amendments will be more generally addressed. But I am a little puzzled by the proposed groupings, and I take it, since on the proposed groupings Amendment No. 15 is on a

313
separate line, that we should not be addressing ourselves to Amendment No. 15 in this group. I shall return to Amendment No. 15 at a later stage.
Let me say first of all that I have never, before recent days, had any great feeling of solidarity with a salami sausage, even when it has been placed upon the slicer. But I now begin to understand the feelings of a salami sausage when it is on the slicer. Throughout our discussions see the principle being enunciated time and time again that one more slice will make no difference. The general proposition which has been put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, is that we placed our constitutional salami sausage upon the slicer in 1972 and that we no longer have any rights whatsoever to say "stop" until we have been sliced, and sliced, and sliced, and sliced.
What I see time and again in the detail of the treaty—perhaps I may now slightly change the analogy without unduly confusing your Lordships—are new pegs being put in for the treaty (whatever it may be called) of 1996 or 1997. Before dinner we discussed how defence policy has been slid into the treaty—not in very hard terms; it is just sort of mentioned. It is "sort of mentioned" in terms rather more explicit than the concept of citizenship was expressed in the Treaty of Rome as we enacted it into our domestic law in 1972. It is a peg.
Now we find another peg; namely, Article 138a. In case noble Lords have not yet found it, perhaps I may remind them of what it says:
"Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens, of the Union".
What does that mean? Is it Eurowaffle, Euroguff, or will it be the hock on which, on some day in the future, in the extremely well chosen words of the Prime Minister today, there will be more "muddleheaded meddling by the Commission".
"Muddleheaded meddling"—those are strong words from the Prime Minister, who is quite clearly seeking to establish his credibility as the most Euro-sceptical of us all. They are words which I myself should have hesitated to use; they are so harsh.
But what effect would the removal of Article 138a from the treaty have? When my noble friend winds up this debate and responds to it—there will be ample opportunity after her response for noble Lords again to take up the issue—I expect her to explain very clearly what would be the effect upon the treaty of taking out that article. Indeed, what is the effect of keeping it in?
What do those words mean? Will we be told that they have no real meaning and are just Euroguff, like that Euroguff of years ago in the Treaty of Rome about an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe? Is it that Euroguff which we now find, according to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, we should all have known meant that we were to be made citizens of the European Union—a European Union which had not been invented at that time?
My goodness me! The way in which, in retrospect, people find out what such things meant! One can almost see the divine hand of providence popping
314
those words into the treaty so conveniently. That is nothing like as clearly as I see the divine hand of providence in the fact that my honourable friend Mr. William Cash, the Member for Stafford, was born on the day that the Royal Air Force bombed the bridge at Maastricht to stop the advance of the Germans across Europe. It really was divine providence to have arranged that.
I return to the point. I should like to ask my noble friend what the impact of those words has upon the treaty. I want to make sure that she has heard the question and understood it clearly. She nods. She has.
Secondly, what would be the effect upon the treaty if the words were not there? She will no doubt say that it will entirely mess up the treaty because we would be signing a different treaty to the other members. That is not the point that I wish to make. Would it make any difference if those words were vaporised out of the treaty as it has been discussed in all 12 parliamentary assemblies of the Community? How did those words get into the treaty? Are they some kind of appendix, something left over from the evolutionary process of the creation of the treaty, now no longer with a purpose except occasionally to become inflamed and cause distress in the way that appendices sometimes do? Or are they there for a specific purpose? Are they another peg in relation to which in 1996–97 we will be told "Didn't you understand that? It has some enormous constitutional significance now. You agreed to it in 1993. You didn't understand what it meant? Oh, what a foolish lot you are. However, you are committed to it now." The salami is moved further along the slicer and something else has disappeared from our national life. We will then find that the legislators of 1997 have no right to object because your Lordships and the other place accepted it in 1993.
If we are to accept those words, I should like to know what they mean. If I am told that they mean nothing, then I want to know why they are there. It is a very bad principle to incorporate into British domestic law matters that have no meaning. Someone will find a meaning to place upon them at a future time. I can offer no possible explanation as to why the words are included in the treaty. I am not without some degree of ingenuity in such matters but I am totally at a loss to decide what those words mean.
I wish that my noble friend Lord Cockfield were here. He would not be at a loss because he has explained that the treaty is a mere trifle, something that we should have disposed of before dinner, let alone continued to discuss this evening. He stated at Second Reading that it is only a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Where is the "i" in the Treaty of Rome on the statute book that is being dotted by Article 138a? Where is the "t" that is already on the statute book that is being crossed? Are a new "i" and a new "t" being introduced into the Treaty of Rome which will be dotted or crossed in 1996 or 1997, or earlier if the Belgian presidency has its way, for example next week? There is an indecent haste to proceed further before Europe has digested what has already been done.

315
I have made clear to my noble friend how I wish her to reply to my inquiries. I hope that she will be able to do so to the satisfaction of myself and, indeed, your Lordships' Committee.
Let me turn to a rather broader matter for I know that it has no strong procedural force. I refer to the grouping of amendments. I ask the indulgence of the Committee to refer to them as a grouping rather than to them individually. It would make my argument rather shorter if I were granted that indulgence than if I were to be denied it.
The grouping comes under the heading of "Institutions, Council, Commission and Parliament". Let me put this thought to the Committee. These are the institutions by which the Treaty of Rome is enforced upon the peoples of Europe. This is the moment when, in the treaty, we are shovelling dots on I's and crosses on T's in the form of new powers which have not formerly been exercised through the European institutions on to those institutions. It is time that we took stock and asked ourselves whether it is fair and reasonable to believe that those institutions and those procedures are in any way adequate for the tasks that they already have, let alone the new tasks placed upon them by the treaty.
An industrialist friend of mine observed to me the other day, "I don't bother any longer to seek to lobby Ministers of the Government in any way. By the time matters arrive at the Minister's Dispatch Box the decisions have already been taken. I go to Brussels". He added, "But what alarms me is that whereas I used to be able to get sensible answers from commissioners, even though I did not agree with them, increasingly commissioners are no longer in control of what is coming forward". That is not surprising.
Let us examine what happens to a policy question. We are all relatively familiar, and I have no need to bore the Committee, with how policy comes forward, is turned into legislative proposals and fights its way through those Cabinet committees which we are now allowed to mention in this newer, freer age—for example, QL—and eventually find a place in the legislative timetable. But as M. Delors explained, before long 80 per cent. of the legislation affecting the lives of the citizens of these islands, will be decided not in this Palace of Westminster, but in Brussels—80 per cent.
Are the mechanisms capable of bringing forward those proposals and dealing with them not only in an efficient manner, but also in a democratic manner? The Community is discussing enlargement. Many Members of the Committee this evening will have sat, as I have done, in the Council of Ministers—one of 12–operating on institutions which were designed to be operated in a Community of six. We can look forward before long, I hope, to a Community of 16. Beyond that it is my devout hope that we can look forward to a community of 20, 25 or more. Can your Lordships imagine a tour de table before lunch of 16 or 20 Ministers all expressing their views on a policy issue?
Let us not even bother about the trifling difficulty of finding sufficient people who can translate from Finnish to Portuguese without going through two
316
other languages on the way. That tends sometimes to reduce the directness and clarity of points of view that may initially have been put with a lack of directness and clarity. It is clearly impossible for those 16, 20 or however many Ministers it may be in future, meeting only periodically, to be able between themselves to find a way to bring forward policies to be discussed, threshed out and turned into legislation, because they are legislators. That is why we get so much bad legislation from Brussels.
Who will be taking the decisions and creating legislation? We know that to some considerable extent today these matters are dealt with by the Commission, in particular by commissioners. When the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was there in relation to the workload that fell upon his shoulders to a very considerable extent he was able to deal with those matters himself. When the Commission has come to its conclusion it is passed on to COREPER, as was described most graphically the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. The permanent representatives do the bargaining and sort it out. For example, on Monday evening the Minister will find in his dispatch box the speaking notes for what he has to say on Tuesday morning at the Council of Ministers. If he has any doubts about it when he gets to Brussels he will be told by COREPER that it has all been sorted out, that he does not need to worry about it and it will be extremely difficult if he objects in any way. That is what happens today. It requires Ministers of courage, determination and great political skill—Ministers who are there for long enough to establish contacts with Ministers of other governments who may be there long enough. In my experience, it is also absolutely vital to establish contacts with the civil servants of other Ministers if the Minister is to be effective.
With this treaty and others that are to come we are placing a huge extra workload upon the Commission. As the Euro-enthusiasts like to tell us (I am sure there will be one here to correct me if I am wrong), the Commission has at its command less civil servants than the Scottish Office. That is the figure that I hear quoted. Can such an organisation cope with the amount of responsibility that is being placed upon it? I think not. How is it managing to cope at the moment?
I will tell your Lordships how it is done. It is recruiting by the score young law graduates from schools in places like Paris, Brussels and, presumably, London—I make no narrow nationalist point—who know nothing of the world beyond the Treaty of Rome and the institutions of the Commission. They have no experience as democratic politicians. They increasingly have no attachment to any institution except the Commission. They have no experience in business nor commerce nor industry. But what they are very good at is finding a text in the treaty, looking at it in detail, meeting among themselves, deciding how the powers of the Commission and the institutions of the Community can be stretched out (for that is their lifeblood) and stretching them out. And by the time they have sorted out these policy issues and fed them up to the commissioners, the die

317
is already being cast, because not even commissioners of the enormous energy and quality of my noble friend Lord Cockfield, whose energy is prodigious, as those of us who served in Cabinet with him will know, have enough hours in the day to control this great surge of legislation which is coming up from beneath them. What hope is there for a democratic control exercised by Ministers in the Council?
These are the issues which are behind the amendments on the Marshalled List. Those of us who are critics of the treaty, have no solutions at the moment other than to say that one should not be overloading in Oat manner. I hope that when she comes to reply, my noble friend will tell us what proposals the Government have for the reform of the institutions in order to ensure that they are able to cope with the workload which is being placed upon them.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: Although I have put my name to Amendment No. 11, I wish to confine my remarks solely to Amendment No. 191, which was explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Once again, in Article 138a, we Find a phrase which echoes the phrase in the preamble which we discussed in our deliberations on Amendment No. 3. The sonorous phrase then was,
"reinforcing the European identity".
The sonorous phrase in Article 138a is,
"forming a European awareness".
It is presumably not a European awareness that embraces the whole of Europe but an awareness confined strictly to that minority of European countries which happen to be currently members of the EEC.
One enthusiastic exponent of the joys of forming a European awareness appears to be M. Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the Front Nationale in France. The Guardian newspaper revealed only a few days ago that M. Le Pen and his cronies received almost £390,000 of EEC taxpayers' money—in practice, British and German taxpayers' money since we are the only countries to be net contributors to EEC funds—as reimbursement for expenses incurred on luxury fact-finding missions to Venice and to other desirable cities and resorts of Europe.
Other enthusiasts for forming a European awareness would appear to be the European People's Party, a group in the European Parliament with which believe the Conservative MEPs are affiliated. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, will correct me if I am wrong. In a document published in September 1990 the European People's Party wrote:
"The formation of European party structures is extremely important to the further progress of European integration. The EPP, which has set itself the aim of creating a United States of Europe, feels particularly challenged here".
It later states quite baldly that the goal of the European People's Party is a United States of Europe. What strange bedfellows our Conservative MEPs keep when their goal of a United States of Europe is so diametrically opposed to the goal of our Prime
318
Minister, as we are given to understand, and who totally opposes such an entity. But let that pass for the moment.
Article 138a also refers to,
"expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union".
That sounds fine—even admirable--at first glance; but it is in fact a weasel phrase. The political will of the citizens of a nation state is expressed by their own political parties. To the extent that their political will —that is, the political will of the people of any individual nation—differs from that of the citizens of the Union as a whole and the more powers are transferred to the European Parliament, the less the aspirations and needs of the individual nation states will be heeded.
Lord Bethell: Perhaps I may speak to my Amendment No. 204, which takes into consideration the rights that will accrue to the European Parliament under the Maastricht agreement to approve or disapprove the President of the Commission and the Commissioners as a body. I propose to argue that this paragraph does not go far enough and that it would have been preferable if a paragraph had been added that would have enabled the European Parliament to advise and consent to the appointment of each individual Commissioner.
It will be useful at this stage to say a few words about various points that have been made in this debate about the institutions. My noble friend Lord Tebbit and one or two other speakers have given the impression that there are such serious problems in the European institutions that the situation is hopeless and beyond redemption. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made this point particularly strongly as regards the European Parliament. However, my noble friend Lady Hooper explained that a lot has changed. since the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, left the European Parliament in 1979. For one thing, Members are now directly elected rather than appointed by their party leaders.
I think that it would be a mistake to dismiss the European Parliament now after only a few years of its existence, and not to take into account some of its achievements and some of its possibilities once the Maastricht agreement has been approved. I should mention in particular the role of the European Parliament in getting right the proposed directive on financial services, which will be to the great benefit of the City of London and other British financial institutions; the directive that allows our professional people to work in other EC member states, especially doctors and others in the medical profession; the work of the European Parliament in the discovery of fraud in the European budget; and the work of the European Parliament's budgetary committee on this question. I refer also to our work to reduce the cost of European air travel and to highlight the problems of human rights in third countries. I believe that the European Parliament will be given greater power over budgetary matters as the proportion of the budget that goes on compulsory agricultural expenditure is reduced over the years, as I very much hope it will be.
However, the main purpose of the Parliament (which I believe should not be dismissed and done

319
away with as some noble Lords may wish, but strengthened), must be, as indicated under the treaty, to scrutinise and supervise the Commission in Brussels. Its main task is not to tackle the Council of Ministers. It has its role. We are dealing with government by separation of powers, which is perhaps something that is not familiar to a number of British people, but which is very familiar to Americans and citizens of other countries which have a system of separation of powers.
Under that system it is the duty of the elected Parliament, in particular, to control the budget; to watch out for misdemeanours in expenditure; and to control appointments. I should like to see the European Parliament, if not under the Maastricht agreement because it will be impossible to amend it at this stage, but in a future agreement given those powers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he leaves that point, especially on the European budget, is he telling the Committee, particularly after having read, as he must undoubtedly have read, or heard, the debates on the budget in the European Parliament, that the European Parliament in fact supervised or affected in any way the draft budget for 1993?
Lord Bethell: Of course it did. Every item in the budget was voted on in the budgetary committee, which I dare say the noble Lord has not attended very much, and in plenary session. It is much easier for a Member of the European Parliament to influence the EC budget than it would be for a Member of another place to influence the UK Budget, which in practice is determined solely by the Government. Any Member of another place who tries to amend the British Budget will receive short shrift when it comes to any vote.
Noble Lords: Really!
Lord Bethell: I should be interested to hear of any instances in recent years.
Lord Finsberg: Will my noble friend allow me? Perhaps he has heard of the Rooker-Wise amendment.
Lord Bethell: That is one case, but in the European Parliament it happens on hundreds of occasions every year. The aim of the Maastricht agreement, and others that may follow it, should be to do away with the democratic deficit, and to tackle the problems that have been highlighted by noble Lords in a negative way, by giving the European Parliament the tools that it needs to do its job. It is a step in the right direction to allow the President of the Commission, who will be appointed towards the end of next year, and his colleagues to be approved or disapproved as a body. I hope that the new European Parliament to be elected in June 1994 will cast its votes, not capriciously but on the basis of a careful examination of the new President, involving hearings at which the nominated new President will be required to give evidence and answer questions asked by newly elected MEPs.
It would have been preferable had that power been given to tackle not just the appointment of the
320
President and, so to speak, the "job lot" of Commissioners but the appointment of individual Commissioners and other senior members of the institutions such as members of the European Court of Justice. The European Parliament is not a rival of this place or another place. It works in parallel with them and serves to strengthen democracy in an area where there are certain lacunae which need to be redressed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: May I—
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Is it possible—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: One at a time.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Is it possible that a voice from these Benches might be heard?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We understood—
Baroness Trumpington: Order!
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I express the support of these Benches for Amendment No. 204 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. It is a constructive amendment. It deals directly with the problem of the democratic deficit. Like the noble Lord, we, too, would go further and make the appointment of individual Commissioners subject to the scrutiny and approval of the European Parliament.
It is refreshing to find in a wilderness of negativism an amendment which is positive and aims to do something constructive about bridging and reducing the democratic deficit. The noble Lord has our support. I hope that when the Minister replies she will address this amendment in particular, which is oddly grouped with amendments of a different intent.
10 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wish to put a point to my noble friend Lord Bethell, who speaks as a Member of the European Parliament. It is, therefore, perhaps understandable that he wishes to put a favourable gloss on its activity. From those of us who sit on your Lordships' Select Committee I must say to my noble friend, by their fruits shall ye know them.
Perhaps I may press my noble friend on the aspect of fraud in the Community. When my right honourable friend Sir Leon Brittan came to see us the other day he had to admit that among them the institutions of the Community could not say to the nearest£5,000 million how much is stolen from the Community budget each year. My noble friend has the European Parliament embarking on these wonderful new activities. What hope can he give us that when we discuss these matters again in 1996 or 1997 he will be able to put a figure on fraud in the Community? The Committee has received at least two well-informed reports on the matter. They conclude that the political will to address the problem does not exist.
Lord Bethell: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to intervene again.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It is Committee; you are entitled to.
Lord Bethell: I thoroughly agree with my noble friend that the amount of fraud which takes place in the European institutions is abominable, that it needs to be most carefully addressed and that all Parliaments—national and European—need to look at the matter with the closest possible attention.
I agree that the matter has not been properly tackled, although a number of national parliaments are paying attention to fraud in the European Community. If my noble friend looks in particular at the work of John Tomlinson, MEP, and of various others he will see that considerable scrutiny has been turned on to the question of fraud in the European Community by the EC Budgetary Committee and that a number of remedial measures have been taken.
I agree that there is a lot more to be done. One must in some member states change the habits of a lifetime—of many lifetimes. I believe that the European Parliament should be strengthened in order to do that job. Perhaps that is where I part company with my noble friend; he believes that the European Parliament should be swept away, whereas I believe that it should be strengthened in order to carry out its work.
Baroness Elles: I thank my noble friend for having given way. Does he agree with me that the EC Budgetary Control Committee was the first to produce reports on fraud in the Community and that it is the fault of the member states that fraud is not discovered? The member state must repay the money to the Community and therefore no member state is encouraged to discover fraud and to repay the sums fraudulently taken from the Community budget.
Lord Bethell: My noble friend is quite right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I think that we ought to give this side of the Committee a chance. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has perhaps confirmed the fear of many of us that this is a centralising treaty and takes at least a step—perhaps a big step, perhaps a small step—towards a federal or unitary state. The noble Lord said that he believed that the European Parliament should supervise not the Council but the Commission. Therefore, the assumption is that the administration of Europe is by the Commission. That is the assumption. The noble Lord does not wish to supervise the Council of Ministers; he wishes to supervise the Commission.
Of course, some of us listen to what Members of the European Parliament say. As my noble friend pointed out earlier, many Members of the European Parliament believe that the European Commission will be the government, and, indeed, is now the government, of Europe. That is what people like myself do not and will not countenance under any circumstances. Therefore, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for making it absolutely clear what the European Parliament is about and what this Bill is about.
322
There is no doubt that the Bill and the Maastricht Treaty give additional powers to the institutions of Europe. We have heard about some of those this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, told us, there is the power to vet and veto commissioners. The Commission wants even more power to vet and veto commissioners. Those commissioners are appointed by national governments. Therefore, the treaty gives one of the institutions power to negate what national governments have done.
That is an interference with the sovereignty of those governments, whether we like it or not. It sounds innocuous but, in real terms, it is a serious interference with the right of a government to appoint, as their commissioners, the commissioners which they want, unimpeded by anybody else.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps my noble friend will give way. My noble friend is aware that the European Parliament has now, and has for many years, had the theoretical right to dismiss the entirety of the Commission. Does he regard that as a negation of the sovereign powers of member states? It is true that that right has never been exercised, but it has existed for many years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My noble friend will know that I believe that everything about Europe negates our sovereign powers. However, that power which the European Parliament has is a power which was given to it and which it has had for a very long time. I am seeking to prevent the institutions having further powers because I do not agree that they should have those powers at all.
Then there is the power to appoint an ombudsman. That may be aping our own Parliament but, nevertheless, that is an additional power, as is the power to initiate legislation, which had not existed previously. We must not concentrate on the European Parliament. Having said that, the European Parliament costs £390 million per year compared with £120 million for the House of Commons arid the House of Lords. In that case perhaps we should take some notice of it because of its high costs. Nevertheless, other institutions have additional powers and we shall discuss them in depth later. For example, the Commission will have the power to recommend to the court fines on member states that it believes are defaulting on their duties. The court will have the power to fine nation states if they are in default of court orders. I do not know how on earth those fines will be enforced, but that will make for an interesting discussion later.
Many noble Lords have urged us to deal quickly with the treaty. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is nodding his head. I can well understand that he wants things to go through speedily. However, with his experience of treaties and, indeed, of negotiations, should have thought that he would know full well that deep proposals such as those proposed which involve giving powers to other institutions need close study. I hope that he will forgive me, and others like me, for not taking as read assurances given to me by people who have previously given assurances that have not in actual fact proved to be true.

323
I hope that Members of the Committee will take seriously our desire to examine the Bill thoroughly. We are doing so in a civilised manner. We very much resent being told that we ought not to discuss it. We also very much resent being heckled and made fun of by certain Members of the Committee.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, I think it is fair that I say so. We are trying to do a job for Parliament and for the people of the country. We are trying to ensure that legislation does not pass through this place without proper scrutiny. That is our job. If necessary, we shall do so with review and, indeed, with amendment. I hope that our aims are taken seriously. I also hope that all noble Lords will agree that the issues discussed today are both relevant and serious. They deserve to be discussed and to receive a proper reply.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that I believe it is part of our tradition that we are heckled. That is the point of a parliamentary democracy; we should not mind that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I think that it is, perhaps, appropriate for me to intervene at this stage to express the Opposition's point of view about the large number of amendments under consideration, but in particular about the areas upon which the Committee has concentrated this evening. We have concentrated largely on the powers of the European Parliament and touched also on the powers of the Commission. I shall allude to those matters, among others.
I should say at the beginning of my remarks that in no way did my intervention seek to undermine my noble friend in any personal terms. He has every right—indeed, he has a duty—to ensure that his point of view, and that of others who think like him, is adequately expressed in such debates. Our debates are most important. No one should underestimate their importance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will my noble friend give way?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes, certainly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I can assure my noble friend that a proper intervention is perfectly in order; indeed, 1 like them. I always give way and, I hope, answer them. However, the sedentary explosions, and so on, that come from a certain quarter are somewhat off-putting. Perhaps a little restraint on the part of certain noble Lords might not go amiss.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Of course, sedentary explosions do occur from time to time. There have been complaints about a lack of accountability on the part of the institutions; about the fact that they have to undertake tasks that are too onerous; and about the fact that such tasks will increase in the future. There are also complaints about fraud and their failure to deal with it, although as the noble Baroness, Lady
324
Elles, said in her intervention, the overwhelming amount of fraud arises in member states and is not properly dealt with by them.
I recall an occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and the rest of the Commission sought to persuade the member states to enable the Commission to have powers to deal more adequately with fraud. Those powers were denied. It ill behoves those who played a part in denying the Commission those powers to complain bitterly now that the Commission has failed in its activities, and likewise the Parliament. However, I am not sure that the Parliament is able to exercise very much influence in those affairs. Perhaps it ought to exercise greater influence in dealing with some of the excesses that occur. I know that the Parliament is concerned about those matters. It does not exactly redound to the benefit of the Parliament if wild excesses of expenditure occur. However, such excesses occur in other respects and in other fields too.
If one expects these institutions to do their work, they must be properly resourced. I do not believe they are properly resourced at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to young people coming into these institutions and seeking to assert their own powers because they have a vested interest in the Commission—the noble Lord was in particular adverting to the Commission—as it will prolong their careers. The noble Lord suggested that for those people there was an advantage in the Commission being a centralised, supranational institution which would assume larger and larger powers to itself.
I say with great respect that in the four years during which I had the honour to be a commissioner I did not perceive that happening at all. It is a travesty of the truth to suggest that people who are prepared to work inside the Commission do so for such base reasons. The work is no longer regarded as particularly well paid. People have to move to another country to carry out their duties. One of the problems is that the very philosophy enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has undermined the influence of Britain in the institutions. Over the years, people like the noble Lord and others have put people off serving in the Commission. For that reason there is today an insufficiency of people in the higher grade posts in the Commission emanating from this country. We should enthuse people with the idea of working for the Commission and doing a valuable job.
Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, may say, the Commission has a valuable role to fulfil and will continue to do so. That is not to say that it always does a superb job. I do not think governments always do superb jobs. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and his noble friend Lady Thatcher were responsible for the poll tax. That was not exactly a case of doing a superb job as the present Government recognised by getting rid of it.
I turn to the Parliament itself. First of all, it is a relatively new institution. It has only recently become an elected assembly. It is an institution which has played a more notable part than even the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was able to represent to this Chamber as he omitted to say that the influence of the Parliament in bringing actions against the Council of Ministers

325
has led to a number of landmark decisions which themselves have helped to evolve policy in the field of transport and of the environment in a most significant way. I remember how pleased the noble Lord was about the decision taken in the case brought by the Parliament against the transport Ministers in the Council for failing to pursue a common transport policy. I remember how pleased he was—I believe with hindsight he was entitled to be pleased—about the Nouvelles Frontières case which assisted aviation policy. Those were landmark decisions, many of which arose because of the supervision exercised by the European Parliament over important areas of policy. I have mentioned two or three.
Somebody, I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, said that the Parliament was worth nothing and had no powers. He does not want to give it powers, but he makes the complaint that it has no powers. It has important budgetary powers. It is part of the budgetary authority of the Community. I well remember living under acute difficulties when the Parliament and the Council were unable to agree the budget. The Commission lived on what were called provisional twelfths, living from hand to mouth. Some of us began to worry whether we would be paid, but I am glad to say that that did not arise. The fact is that it is not a sham Parliament. It is not powerless to do anything. However, its present powers are not adequate to deal with the issue of the democratic deficit which unquestionably arises.
For that reason I believe that what is happening in relation to the Maastricht Treaty, in giving it certain important powers, is not going as far as we should. I believe that the European Parliament should have a power of veto, albeit very limited or in very constrained circumstances, under the negative assent procedure. The five co-decision powers which it enjoys will enable it to be more purposive in influencing the Council of Ministers.
I think that it was my noble friend Lord Stoddart who asked what the European Parliament does to supervise the Council of Ministers. One of the great difficulties about the Council of Ministers is that largely it carries out its duties rather furtively and in secret. I have heard Ministers—not simply British Ministers—say to the public in their countries through the media that what they had had to say in the Council was such-and-such, which was the complete reverse of anything that I had heard them say in the Council. I am sure that that was the experience of others. Consequently, we need to open that up.
The European Parliament is under some difficulties in that regard since it does not have any real role at present in the determinations which are undertaken by the Council of Ministers.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. It is an interesting proposition which has been put forward that the proceedings of the Council of Ministers should be open to the public. Would the noble Lord advocate that the proceedings of the Commission should also be open to the public? After all, that is where the decisions are really made, is it not?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes, I believe that when the Cabinet in this country decides that it will undertake its deliberations in public similar bodies might do likewise. I believe that some of the discussions inside the Commission ought to be more open. The whole burden of Commission policy over the years has been to open up discussion. I speak as a former Commissioner, not as somebody who holds that office at present.
I shall give way to my noble friend in a moment.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Trumpington: Will one of the noble Lords give way and sit down?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall give way to my noble friend in a moment. I was responsible for one of the directives in the environment field dealing with greater transparency—the freedom of environmental information directive. I am very proud of that. I believe that it would be better if all the institutions in the Commission, and a wider number of institutions outside the Commission, were more transparent in their activities. I did not notice at the time that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was a fervent supporter of greater transparency. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to my noble friend. Will he confirm that about two minutes ago he confirmed the position of the Commission as equivalent to the Cabinet? Is that not what we have been saying?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I did no such thing. The Commission is not like the Cabinet. It operates in a totally different way. However, I would be very happy to see the Cabinet opened up to greater transparency. Why not? But, of course, one has to be realistic about the fact that ideas are discussed within an organisation such as the Cabinet or the Commission, which involve a degree of confidentiality. However, the Commission always has the reputation of being the only vessel in the world which leaks from the top.
I turn to another power. When I was subjected to those interventions I was adverting to the powers of the European Parliament. I believe it right that it should have the new powers connected with the appointment of the Commission and, indeed, to deal. with the Commission's programme too. I do not go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Bethel'. I do not wish to enlarge upon the argument—it is a separate and difficult argument—about whether the Commission should become totally beholden to the Parliament. That is the risk of going down his route. However, I leave that point.
Citizens within the Community have been given a new right to be able to petition the European' Parliament. Noble Lords who argue against the creation of an ombudsman dealing with maladministration cannot argue that maladministration is rife and at one and the same time deny the European Parliament the right to be able to deal with that problem in a more effective way. I refer in particular to the rights of citizens to be able to go to an ombudsman. Yes, of course that right will take

327
additional resources, but it adds to the influence of citizenry within the Community; and that needs to be enhanced.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, raised the point about political parties and Article 138a. I do not know the reasoning underlying that point. I shall listen with considerable interest to the noble Baroness when she replies to the debate. I am not entirely sure that I know what it all means. However, the noble Baroness is in a more privileged position than I am to deal with that issue.
However, I wish to deal with a point made by the noble Lord about the surge of legislation. Perhaps legislation has been at its most rife in dealing with the implementation of the single market and its legislative powers. It is an issue with which his Government were most concerned. There were something like 282 different legislative proposals. Of course that imposed a substantial burden upon the Commission. However, apart from that, I believe that the noble Lord grossly exaggerates the situation with regard to the burden of legislation through Brussels. What adds to the burdens is that member states—as they are perfectly entitled to do—sometimes confuse that legislation. The process of amendment by the member states in the COREPER and in the Council is formidable. The European Parliament also amends legislation.
I wish to deal with one area of accountability which has not been referred to in the debate. I believe that the European Parliament at present has a relationship—it is more effective than is conceded by opponents who have expressed a view in the Chamber today—with the Commission which provides it with very effective supervision. I refer to the personal relationship between the commissioner and the committees with which he or she deals. That is extremely important. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that I went to immense trouble to liaise effectively with those who were responsible for my areas of policy inside the European Parliament. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, will concede that. Every commissioner does so. About 70 per cent. of the amendments that have been adopted by the Parliament under Article 100a have been adopted by the Commission. That has facilitated the legislative process so far as concerns the internal market and legislation which is associated with the internal market.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was right. Of course, he conceded that there was room for improvement in the way in which the Parliament carries out its duties. There is room for improvement in many respects and in many parliaments. But we ought to give that Parliament, which has been in existence for such a short time, the benefit of the doubt. Overall, it is doing a very good job.
I speak again from my own personal experience, I believe that the Commission did not and has never sought to become this great supranational government about which some Members of the Committee speak so capriciously and idly. If those institutions are to do a better job in the future, they need to be more open, able to be given powers to deal with the
328
democratic deficit, which is real. There is a great need to be able to communicate more effectively with the people of the Community about the job that the different institutions do. I believe that is what the Euro-sceptics—if I may deem them such—seek to deny.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: At this late hour, I shall do my best to wind up and answer questions as speedily as possible, because I believe some Members of the Committee wish to move on to a further amendment.
This set of amendments caused me to have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, when he moved Amendment No. 11, with the complexity of cross-referencing over 60 amendments before us. Let me try to concentrate on the questions that have been asked about the amendments and then respond to Amendment No. 11 which has been moved.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, talked about the preliminary draft budget for 1994. He and I would both like to have it in our possession already, but do not. The Commission only adopted it in late April. I point out that it is a preliminary draft budget. The press notice issued outlined just global figures; but following the adoption of the preliminary draft budget, the Commission is now preparing a line by line documentation for each of the institutions. That will be presented to the Council and to the European Parliament in mid to late June. When that process is complete—and the documentation is not yet available for all the institutions—it will be transmitted straight to the Council and deposited in the Library of the House in the usual way. I shall try to give the noble Lord warning by telephone that it is there, so that he is first—or at the front of the queue, anyway.
The noble Lord talked eloquently about the extra load on the institutions. I must say that I understand why he is anxious because of the complexity of many of the matters with which we are dealing. But I do not believe that there will be floods of new legal actions as a result of the Maastricht Treaty. Let me not be so bold as to predict future flows of litigation which obviously depend upon a large number of imponderables. On the other hand, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to one or two relevant factors which point in the other direction from that predicted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Large parts of the Maastricht Treaty are outside the jurisdiction of the court, particularly Titles I, V and VI. Secondly, there is an amendment to Article 165 of the Treaty of Rome, which will allow the court to sit in chambers, instead of in a plenary, as is the normal rule. By these means, the same number of judges can deal with far more cases.
Thirdly, the treaty also contains an amendment to Article 168a which will make it easier for more of the ECJ's workload to be taken off its shoulders by the court of first instance. That, I believe, will also make the despatch of business a good deal easier. I well remember the doubts expressed about the court of first instance, but I for one am glad that we had that courage back in 1986, as a result of the negotiation by

329
my noble friend Lady Thatcher, because the court of first instance has lightened the load of the European Court of Justice in a most effective way. That is why I believe that the prediction that the court will not be able to cope is probably going to be rather wide of the mark. But I cannot predict it any more than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, can. I can only tell him the result of our experience so far.
Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord that when he asks whether the treaty gives us the whole picture, I begin to feel a little concerned. I have read the treaty backwards and forwards over years—not just weeks. It tells us a great deal more, and does so in the amalgamated form that the noble Lord paid tribute to. It is a very good form. I also point out that the only reason that the British Government did not go to the expense of printing a consolidated form was that one already existed. (It was printed on 31st August last year). It would have been an unnecessary cost to public expenditure. That is not something that I would authorise, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would do so if he had to take the decision.
The noble Lord also talked in fairly colourful terms about the European Parliament. We had a number of mini-debates going on within the moving of the amendments. I am very glad that it did not result in swords at dawn between my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Perhaps I may say something about one of the other main points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He, in a sense, sought to ridicule the complexity of the conciliation procedure. He talked about the consultation, the co-operation, the co-decision procedures, and so on. I have no hesitation in saying that the procedures are complex. But I would say to the noble Lord that I believe maintaining the institutional balance between the Commission, which is appointed, the council of national Ministers and the Parliament must have such a complex effect. But the result of all of that, as is outlined when one looks at the diagram of the negative assent procedure under Articles 189b and 189c, is clear: there has been a growing influence of the European Parliament on the process of draft legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned that in his final remarks. It is that the elected Members of the European Parliament, however much some people may not agree with the process of election—and even today there are some who still wish that Members of the European Parliament were still appointed—have a real influence.
I say above all to the Committee that it is quite clear that the last word remains with the Council of Ministers, and it always must. If there were any danger that that were not to be the case, then I for one —as well as (I know) my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and all members of the Cabinet—would simply not be going down the path that we are. We go down the path of the Maastricht Treaty because that is what we have negotiated.
To stay with this debate and try to answer the many questions will not be easy. But I believe that my noble friend Lord Plumb, a former president, and a very outstanding president, of the European Parliament, and my noble friend Lady Hooper were both right
330
when they underlined how much has changed since 1979—or indeed, may I say from my own experience, since 1986, when I was privileged to answer questions in the European Parliament every month during the six months of our presidency. Each year, as our own development together as European nations grows, that Parliament is bound to begin to have new influences. But what is above all important is that it is the Council of Ministers which takes the decisions. Therefore, when my noble friends make interventions upon the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, from their experience in the European Parliament, as does my noble friend Lady Elles, who is also a former Member of the European Parliament, they do so with real knowledge of a Parliament which is developing, just as our relationships in the European Community are developing—and rightly so.
I come to the question posed to me by my noble friend Lord Onslow. He asked me to explain very clearly what "union" means. I hope my noble friend will forgive me but I have just put my papers on that matter out of order. I shall certainly come to it later.
I turn to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Tebbit about the European political parties. It might surprise him to hear me say that I understand the concern that he voiced. That is one of the reasons why we fought so hard for the type of Maastricht Treaty that we have obtained. When we come at a later stage to debate the social protocol and when we discuss with my noble friend Lord Caithness the European monetary union opt-out, I am sure he will see how we sought to make sure that there is not a relentless pressure on—to use his words—the salami upon the slicer. Certainly I understand that he has not only an antipathy towards what is proceeding in Europe but an anxiety about it. But unless we are there explaining and arguing our corner, we will not make the progress that he wishes to have made.
My noble friend asked me specifically about Article 138a. It is a declaratory article. There is no doubt about that. It recognises an existing practice within the European Parliament. In that Parliament the MEPs sit according to their political allegiances rather than their nationalities. But there is no suggestion nor provision for positive Community action to promote the formation of political parties at a European level. Yes, there is liaison; yes, people work together. But they do that whether or not the process is formalised. It recognises the fact that this is the way that those who have been elected to the parliament choose to work together.
My noble friend went on to ask, if this is the dotting of the "i"s and the crossing of the "t"s, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield said, what would it lead to. It cannot lead to anything except that to which we permit it to lead. I believe that that is the critical point. What we do in changing our path in Europe must be something in which we are totally involved if in fact that path is to be decided in the way we want. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister went to the other place before he went to Maastricht and gained overwhelming support for his negotiating mandate. That is why when he came back he put to the

331
other place the results of Maastricht and your Lordships had a debate in this House; and on both occasions he gained overwhelming support.
It would be easy to go down a number of the paths that noble Lords have—
Lord Tebbit: Perhaps my noble friend will give way. I asked her to explain to the Committee not only the effect that she saw the article having—she said that it has no effect—but also whether the treaty would be any the less valid in any way at all if it were not there. I asked her if therefore she would explain why it is there. If it is otiose, why was it not taken out? Otherwise, we must assume that it is a peg for the next treaty in 1996.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I believe that my noble friend sees shadow where there is none. It was put there because Members of the European Community believed that it was right to recognise existing practice within the European Parliament. It is not sinister in the way that my noble friend describes. I do not believe that, because it does not make any provision for positive action, it has the implications that he suggests. But if we were to suggest taking it out, we would certainly be going against the wishes of others. The Government saw no reason why it should be taken out. That is why I would not wish to suggest that we should do it now.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit asked about the workload of the Commission. It is great, but with the conclusion of the single market programme and the application of the principle of subsidiarity it is falling off. I have no reason to think that commissioners are not in control of their bureaucracy, as suggested by my noble friend. It is for individual Ministers to ensure that bureaucracy works in accordance with the wishes of the Council. That is why in my council we repeatedly ask, as I did when I was in the Council of Ministers of Transport of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for progress reports on the decisions of previous council meetings. That is the way in which Ministers in the Council of Ministers should act. The decisions rest with elected Ministers and much of the preparatory work is undertaken by council working groups briefed by Ministers in government and by members of European parliamentary committees. Therefore, the workload does not fall totally upon the Commission. Ministers at home and the European parliamentary committees have had plenty of opportunity to contribute to that workload.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, wanted me to go into some detail about the European People's Party. I do not think that this is the place to do so, if the noble Lord will forgive me. However, we should be clear that the European identity and the European awareness is a reality among many ordinary people, not only in legal terms but when they are working in European companies and sometimes have to work in one country and then another when the internal market is working fairly well. That awareness is naturally feeding through into the thinking of members of political parties.
At one time Chancellor Kohl used to speak of a
332
united states of Europe, as some of his party still do, but Chancellor Kohl has realised his error. The existence of European political parties does not mean that we are going down the path of a united states of Europe.
It is impossible to answer all the questions that have been posed tonight, but the action on fraud is not one that should be passed over. The increased powers in the Bill to take action on fraud and the increased powers for the Court of Auditors are the right way to proceed. I can confirm the comments made by my noble friend Baroness Elles about the problems of fraud, which occur in many of the member countries. That is why it is right that there should be a power whereby countries that do not put their house in order can be taken before the European Court of Justice. Those are steps in the right direction to deal with fraud. Sadly, there is a long way to go in that respect, and that is something that the Bill and the Maastricht Treaty enable us to do.
My noble friend Lord Bethell asked about the appointment of the Commission. We all understand why he is wedded to the idea that the European Parliament should be consulted to a greater degree. The Commission is already subject to greater democracy. The member states retain the right to nominate their own commissioners and they will continue to do so. They can appoint the president and the Commission. This is not the right time to go further down the path advocated by my noble friend Lord Bethell in Amendment No. 204, but it is right that we should exercise the powers in the treaty and exercise them fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, talked about the centralising treaty and where power lies. The real power continues to lie with the Council, and so it always must. It lies with the national parliaments. Our Parliament has one of the best standards of scrutiny in the European Community. I sincerely hope that other national parliaments will emulate our rules on scrutiny.
The hour is late. I have sought to answer the main questions raised. Amendment No. 11, in a technical sense, would introduce a legal anomaly. Our whole debate has been in relation to the powers of the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. This Committee needs assurance that the Council remains the supreme decision-making body; that the Commission is under the control of the Council; and that the Parliament does not gain unreasonably in its powers, because that is the fear that is being expressed.
I have been through the 60 amendments with some care. While I can understand why the amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I do not believe that it would help us in our work to have it agreed tonight. The practices which have already developed in the Community and which are included in the treaty are sensible ones. If we were to add the words suggested in Amendment No. 1 I we would have the provisions of Title I included a second time. They are already included within the scope of the Bill to the extent that they relate to the amendments to the Community treaties in Titles II, III and IV. For instance, the common provision refers in places to the

333
activities of the Community. Another article describes how the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice will exercise the powers.
All in all, I believe that we are better without the amendment. It does not add to the scope. We have had a useful debate, but the Council must remain in control, and the Bill will not have it any other way.
The Earl of Onslow: Will my noble friend answer my union question? She said that she would and she has not. It is most important.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I apologise to my noble friend. I was so busy answering the other questions that I misplaced the piece of paper on which I wrote carefully the words that were used.
The point that I sought to make was to give my noble friend a clear and unequivocal statement. Let me give it to him as it is legally agreed. (I thank my noble friend for finding the right piece of paper.) The European Union is the framework within which co-operation takes place, either within the European Community—the rules are set out in the Treaty of Rome and are not changed by the Maastricht Treaty —or under the specific rules laid down for co-operation on justice and home affairs or on the common foreign and security policy. International agreements will continue to be concluded by the Community where they fall within Community competence but by the member states where they fall under the other two areas of co-operation. The union has no international legal personality.
That is the definition. I apologise to my noble friend. I did not intend to leave him out. The piece of paper was misplaced, and I thank my noble friend Lord Ullswater for finding it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I sincerely trust that the Committee will not think it presumptuous if I venture to thank those Members who participated in the discussions on this group of amendments. From my point of view the exchanges have been most agreeable.
There were times when I harked back to shortly after 1979 when the new government came in and there was a different occupant on the Woolsack. For one moment I was transported back to those halcyon days when the off-the-cuff remarks from the Woolsack to the Bishops' Bench could be overheard. By looking to my left today, to the Privy Council Bench on the government side, I was reassured to see that the old hand was still in good order.
The debate has been a most interesting and in many ways penetrating one. I do not wish to comment very much further at this hour; but I feel bound to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. Both of them have reminded me that times have moved on in the European Parliament since I had an honour to be a delegate from this House to that illustrious organisation. I hasten to assure the noble Baroness and noble Lord that I have followed very carefully everything that has happened in the European Parliament and its committees since that time. I still retain very valued friends in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg who venture to keep me up to date from time to time, to the point where
334
possibly on occasion I can interpolate some information that otherwise may not be available to your Lordships' House.
Some observations were made in conclusion on the incidence of fraud. At a later stage in the proceedings when we come to consider the question of internal finance perhaps the Committee will forgive me for adding some further and better particulars (to deal with the lawyers' side of it) on this important matter. It will be within the recollection of the Select Committee of which I have the honour to be a Member that when we went to the Commission about the incidence of fraud in the Community the initial reaction was almost a denial of its existence. Therefore, I am afraid that the idea that the Commission itself instigated and became alarmed about fraud before this House did is hardly well placed. Still, they are matters that can be dealt with at a later stage.
In the meantime, I renew my thanks to those who have participated in the debate. In view of the lateness of the hour and honourable undertakings given and received—undertakings that have been kept—I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 9, after ("Titles") insert ("I (except paragraph 3 of Article F)").
The noble Lord said: As the noble Baroness Lady Chalker has reminded us, because the hour is late and a number of other noble Lords will wish to speak to the amendment, I shall be as brief as possible. It is a probing amendment, albeit an extremely important one. Paragraph 3 of Article F states:
"The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
What on earth does it mean or signify? The "means" referred to are not in any way limited either in kind or extent. The powers to be granted to the new Union under the paragraph are theoretically completely open-ended. Does it not pave the way for requiring a proportion not only of VAT but of nationally raised income and corporation taxes to be paid over to the new Union so that it can better attain its objectives and carry out its policies? Is it too fanciful to suggest that it may pave the way for a trans-European police force better to enforce the policies of the Union? Others have suggested that the means must include a federal written constitution for the new Union which will impose a single centralised framework in place of the three so-called independent pillars on which the Government rely in propagating the alleged virtues of the Bill. I look forward anxiously to the Government's reply. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: When my noble friend replies to the debate will he tell us what limits are placed upon the union in relation to it providing itself -with the means necessary to obtain its objectives? As it is written in

335
the treaty, that seems to be very wide. Perhaps my noble friend can say in what way and where those matters are constrained.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): I understand the concerns of both the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Tebbit that Article F.3 may appear to give the union a blank cheque. The noble Lord and my noble friend will be reassured to learn that it does not. I hope that I can explain to my noble friend that there are certainly limits.
Article F.3, which replicates presidency conclusions endorsed by my noble friend Lady Thatcher at the Rome European Council in December 1990, does not commit the United Kingdom to agreeing particular Community activities or increased resources for the Community to fund its activities. As the Committee will know, Titles II, III and IV amend the existing three Community treaties. These amendments impact on the framework for the areas of Community activity that may take place under the treaties and be funded from the Community budget. But there are a number of important limitations when it is decided that Community action is appropriate.
The new Article 201a provides that the Commission shall not make a proposal with appreciable budgetary implications unless it can give an assurance that that measure can be financed from within the limit of the Community's own resources. This was an important change as a result of one of our own initiatives. Also important are Article 199, which provides for a balanced budget, and Article 201, which provides that amendments to the system of own resources requires the Council to act by unanimity and for any changes to be ratified by member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. For the UK that would mean this Parliament's agreement to an amendment of the European Communities Act 1972. The level of own resources that was agreed for the period up to 1999 was that agreed at the Edinburgh European Council. That is an upper ceiling on spending and certainly not an entitlement—and certainly not, as I stressed earlier, a blank cheque to the Community to spend United Kingdom taxpayers' money.
336
I hope that that is sufficient to clarify the position for my noble friend. I hope that it is also sufficient to clarify the position for the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I trust that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend. I construe from what he is saying that he is assuming that the word "means" can be translated into financial resources. Can he assure the Committee that "means" in this context means only financial resources and no other thing?
Lord Henley: I would rather not go quite as far as that. The French word was "moyens". I accept the correction of my pronunciation from my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. To define it quite simply as purely financial resources, as my noble friend would wish us to do, might limit it more than I would care to go at the moment. It is something I would prefer to come back to, if my noble friend will bear with me, and explain to him later on. At the Dispatch Box at the moment I would rather not agree, in the straightforward manner that my noble friend would wish us, to the definition that he puts forward.
Lord Monson: In view of the Minister's reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I am fairly well satisfied. Like the noble Lord I found the Minister's assurances on the financial side fairly reassuring, with his mention of a ceiling on spending and the agreement on no increase in resources. The question of the police force may be a little fanciful, but the Minister did not answer the question of the written constitution, which those more experienced in these matters than myself have raised in various pamphlets.
As the Minister has promised to contact the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about any implications other than financial which there may be in the paragraph, for the moment I think that the best thing to do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at six minutes past eleven o'clock.

  AID ALLOCATION AND DEFENCE EQUIPMENT SALES: POLICY
  AID ALLOCATION AND DEFENCE EQUIPMENT SALES: POLICY
  DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 25th MAY: POPULATION POLICY
  DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 25th MAY: POPULATION POLICY
  HARBEL MASSACRE
  HARBEL MASSACRE
  FLOATING HELIPORTS
  FLOATING HELIPORTS
  ABATTOIRS: CLOSURES
  ABATTOIRS: CLOSURES
  GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET OPERATIONS
  GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET OPERATIONS
  CLINICAL SPECIALTIES IN LONDON: REVIEWS
  CLINICAL SPECIALTIES IN LONDON: REVIEWS