Sitting of 24 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

        WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [ Lords] (By Order)
        Orders for Second Reading read.
        To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 July.

        WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [ Lords] (By Order)

          BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL ( By Order)
          Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
          Debate to be resumed on Thursday 1 July.

          BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL ( By Order)

            LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] ( By Order)
            Order for Second Reading read.
            To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Volunteering
    Miss Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about initiatives to promote volunteering.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The Home Office funds a number of organisations which promote voluntary activity. For example, at the beginning of this month, with support from the Home Office and the BBC, the Volunteer Centre UK organised a highly successful volunteers week, on which I congratulate it. More than 12,000 inquiries were made by prospective volunteers on the telephone helplines alone.
    Miss Nicholson: I thank the Minister for his full response. Can he tell me whether the Prime Minister's Christmas message mentioned the importance of volunteering as central to our society? Does my hon. Friend see the number of volunteers swelling and the ways in which they assist in the community growing, as I do? Does he agree that it is a wonderful initiative whereby hundreds of thousands of people give freely of time, energy and professionalism and the Home Office supports their work?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister spoke about the importance that he places on
    430
    volunteering. About half the population volunteer for charitable work at some time in their lives. We want to increase the number of volunteers, the regularity with which they do charitable work and their effectiveness.
    Mr. Michael: I am tempted to wish the Minister a happy Christmas after that question. I welcome him to his new responsibility for bringing together charities and voluntary organisations and express pleasure that the Government are catching up with the Labour party in that regard. Does he agree that volunteering should not be regarded as a cheap way of getting a job done and that we need to respect the professionalism of volunteers as well as their commitment? Will he give an undertaking to expand the way in which the Government provide training and resources for the support of volunteers? Does he accept that there is a danger that the contract culture may lead to a top-down approach in which the Government may seek to constrain too tightly the work of voluntary organisations?
    Mr. Lloyd: I believe that contracting will probably mean an increase in the use of voluntary organisations. Professionalism is extremely important. It is not a cheap way of providing service, although it is the most cost-effective way of doing so. The great advantage is that it harnesses the enthusiasm of people who want to do that work and provides a flexibility that publicly funded and directed organisations cannot, with the best will in the world, supply.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Prime Minister has shown considerable interest in making it possible for a large number of young people to give one year of their time to voluntary service if they so choose? Does he agree that, by so doing, they will enhance their self-respect as well as learn that they grow by giving? Will he do everything in his power to encourage that initiative?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important aspect of volunteering, where it is of benefit to the volunteer, especially those special groups of people whose self-respect needs developing. I refer particularly to former young offenders. Because of my Prison Service responsibilities and my responsibility for voluntary organisations, I take particular interest in organisations such as the Community Service Volunteers, to which I believe that my hon. Friend was referring, to ensure that they are developed further.

    Carl Bridgewater Case
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the Carl Bridgewater case; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Maclean): I shall reply to the representations that I received on 8 June when they have been fully considered, and after any necessary further inquiries have been carried out.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is it not now obvious to the Minister and to all normal thinking people in the country that there is something seriously wrong with the conviction of the Bridgewater Three? In the light of the revelations made by the foreman of the jury at the original trial about the

    431
    evidence that was put before the jury, is it not obvious that it is time for the Home Office rapidly to complete its review of the evidence that was put before it and enable justice to be considered by referring the case back to the Court of Appeal? The issue could then be brought out into the open again and justice could finally be done.
    Mr. Maclean: It is highly premature of the hon. Gentleman to jump to that conclusion. I assure him that we shall pay close attention to Mr. O'Malley's views when we look again at the case. However, it is well established that a simple change of mind by a juror cannot by itself have any legal significance for the safety of a conviction. The solicitor for the convicted man acknowledged that point in the recent petition. I repeat that we shall consider carefully all the representations that we have received before coming to any conclusion.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the past few weeks one of the defendants in the Bridgewater case has been demonstrating on the roof of Gartree prison in my constituency? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the governor of that prison on his calm handling of the demonstration and to congratulate the Prison Service and the local police on bringing the matter to a close without injury or loss of life? Does he agree the proper way to deal with complaints such as that raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is to approach the Home Office directly rather than demonstrating on or about the prison?
    Mr. Maclean: I congratulate the governor of the prison and his staff most sincerely on the sensible and caring way in which they handled that demonstration. I can only agree with my hon. Friend. We shall consider the representations that have been received thoroughly and carefully before coming to any conclusion on the matter. External demonstrations do not help our deliberative processes one iota.
    Mr. Mullin: May I put it as gently as possible to the Minister that it is obvious to most sensible people who take a serious interest in the case that there is something seriously wrong and that the case should go back to the Court of Appeal? There is also an urgent need for the Home Office to demonstrate that it has learnt some lessons from the events of the past five years. Therefore, the sooner the case is referred back to the Court of Appeal, the better.
    Mr. Maclean: I do not suppose that this is the first time that it has been said to the hon. Gentleman that his opening remarks were phrased in a slightly biased way. It is not for the Home Office to decide the guilt or innocence of the men. That is for the Court of Appeal. The issues that have been raised recently in publicity have been considered by the Court of Appeal in previous reviews. However, fresh representations have been made and we are going through them carefully to determine whether they contain any information that suggests that new evidence could he referred to the Court of Appeal. Of course, we want to reach conclusions as soon as we can, but it is more important that we are careful and exact in our deliberations.

    Sentencing
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office what consideration is being given to further changes to the criminal sentences available to the courts.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The Government are determined to ensure that the courts have available an effective range of measures to deal with offenders who appear before them. I will not hesitate to add to or increase the level of those penalties if the need arises.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that custodial sentences are essential to protect the public from those citizens who want to destroy or disrupt society? Will he condemn those, including members of the Labour party, who wish to leave the courts powerless to deal with persistent juvenile offenders, who are a growing problem within our society? Will he reinforce his commitment to the secure training units at which such juveniles could be locked up and kept off society's streets and out of the way so that ordinary members of the public can go about their business in peace and security?
    Mr. Howard: The answer to all my hon. Friend's questions is yes. We are determined to take action to ensure that, in particular, those juvenile offenders who persistently flout the law and cause great offence to people who witness and suffer from their behaviour are subject to a period of detention. I certainly intend to pursue the objectives that were set out by my predecessor.
    Mr. Blair: First, I welcome the new Home Secretary to his position and hope, at least for the sake of the continuity, that he will stay a little longer than his predecessors, though not for too long. Does he agree that one major cause of concern about sentencing is the disparity in the types of sentence given for similar types of offence? That was highlighted again this week by the so-called vigilante cases, some of which were treated relatively leniently and others, such as the Norfolk case, with considerable severity. What proposals will the Home Secretary consider to introduce greater consistency in sentencing so that sentences are handed down by the courts on the basis of established principles of justice and not as a lottery?
    Mr. Howard: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and I look forward to facing him across the Dispatch Box for a long period, so long as he remains on the Opposition Bench and I and my hon. Friends remain on the Government Bench.
    We wish to see greater consistency in sentencing. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, however, cases that appear before the courts involve an infinite range of circumstances, which have to be taken into account. In recent months the hon. Gentleman has taken it upon himself to parade as a guardian of law and order, but the trouble is that he himself has a large number of previous offences to be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman offended by voting against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. He has offended by voting against the prevention of terrorism Act on each and every occasion that it has come

    433
    before the House. The hon. Gentleman has no credentials to appear in the guise of a guardian of law and order, and we will make sure that the country does not forget that.
    Mr. Thurnham: I begin by most warmly congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his well-deserved appointment. Will he recognise the value of the right of appeal against lenient sentences? Is it not a disgrace that Labour Members failed to admit their mistake in opposing that measure?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and I entirely agree with the point that he made. In the teeth of opposition from the Labour party and other parties, we introduced the provisions that now enable the Attorney-General to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has still not admitted that he and his party were wrong to oppose that measure.

    Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office when he now expects the royal commission on criminal justice to report.
    Mr. Howard: I understand that the Royal Commission plans to publish its report on 6 July.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Home Secretary agree that the royal commission was set up because of the considerable concern about the relatively small, but extremely disturbing, number of miscarriages of justice and the soaring crime rate in this country? It was set up for those reasons, but one of the main lobbying groups wants to get rid of the right to silence. Does the Home Secretary agree that getting rid of the right to silence will do nothing to solve the problem of miscarriages of justice, and may increase the number of cases? It certainly will not reduce crime levels in this country, as it will not increase the number of people caught. Does he accept that many Ministers like to use the right to silence and not answer questions in the House, but we cannot presume that they are all guilty?
    Mr. Howard: The royal commission was set up because of a widespread feeling that our system of criminal justice was not working as well as it should and had become far too much of an esoteric game, and not enough of a vehicle for determining guilt and innocence, which should be its function. I shall look carefully at the royal commission's report when it appears; I shall not prejudge it, and I shall not answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as I want to see what the royal commission has to say on the matter. In due course, I shall announce my proposals.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are two kinds of miscarriage of justice, one being the conviction of the innocent and the other the acquittal of the guilty?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who makes an extremely important point. Anyone who takes lightly the extent of concern in this country about those guilty people who walk free from our courts is actually behaving in a way which will earn them the contempt of our people.
    Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary said that he would not prejudge the royal commission, but he has already announced a number of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House of Lords. Has he had prior notice of the views of the royal commission, or has he prejudged it?
    Mr. Howard: We have not announced any amendments to any Criminal Justice Bill before the House of Lords, but we have tabled several amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House of Commons, because, in common with most other people who have considered these matters, we recognise that there are deficiencies in our existing arrangements which need to be remedied without delay. We need to provide without delay for the courts to be able to examine all previous offences and we need to remedy the inability of the courts to take account of the fact that offences have been committed while the offenders were on bail. Where we see clear and blatant deficiencies in our law, we will not hesitate to act speedily to remedy them.
    Mr. Bellingham: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the royal commission, will he bear in mind the case of the Harleston Two, the so-called Norfolk vigilantes? Is he aware that both men, who were sentenced to five years' imprisonment, had no previous convictions whatsoever? Will he discuss with the royal commission the need to speed up appeals, and will he do all that he can to ensure that that particular appeal is dealt with as soon as possible?
    Mr. Howard: I understand the widespread concern about the case to which my hon. Friend refers. He will know that as that matter is the subject of a pending appeal, I cannot comment upon it. It is important that we retain the distinction between vigilance and vigilantes and we must not condone any suggestion that it is right for people to take the law into their own hands. I know that my hon. Friend will agree with that, but I know the concern that is widely felt about the case to which he refers.
    Mr. Allen: While unemployment and poor housing can never be an excuse for crime, does the Secretary of State accept that 14 years of Government policies on unemployment, housing and education could have contributed in any way to the appalling rise in the levels of crime over the same period?
    Mr. Howard: No. Assertions such as those made by the hon. Gentleman do more to blur the crucial distinction between right and wrong than almost anything else. The Conservative party knows that that distinction must never be blurred, and we will not blur it or seek refuge in the verbiage emanating from the hon. Gentleman.

    Police Numbers
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to change procedures for determining the number of police officers in each police force.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): My right hon. and learned Friend will be making a statement in the near future when he lays before Parliament his White Paper on police reform.
    Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend recognise that chief constables will warmly welcome the freedom to take their own decisions regarding manpower levels? Is it not absurd that the knee-jerk opposition to the proposals so aptly shown by Labour Members will lead them to oppose a reform which will give chief constables the option of putting more police on the beat?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the present system, a chief officer who wishes to increase his funding effectively has to express his bid in terms of additional police officers, but it cannot make sense for the Home Office to determine how many officers each force should have. It must be up to the chief officers to decide on the basis of local intelligence and local needs.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: May I express my surprise that the new Secretary of State expressed support for the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which we are currently in the process of seeking to amend? Will his support for more policemen on the beat be enhanced by the Government's proposals for restrictions on spending on police recruitment for the next three years?
    Mr. Wardle: Many aspects of the 1991 Act made a great deal of sense. If the hon. Gentleman is following the Committee proceedings on the Bill, he will understand how it is now to be improved.
    As for police funding, the hon. Gentleman and the House must agree that it is up to chief officers to use their resources and to decide what to spend on manpower and what to spend on equipment. That must make sense.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the past 14 years police numbers have risen by 16,500 and funding for them has risen by about 80 per cent? That shows the priority that we attach to the police. Does he agree that civilianisation and other ways of putting more police on the beat are to be encouraged and that it must be up to the local chief constables to decide how best to serve the community?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right. In addition to the statistics that he has just provided, I am sure that he will bear in mind the fact that, since 1979, almost 15,000 more civilian posts have been created and about 6,600 uniformed officers have been released for beat duties as a result of the civilianisation process.
    It must be up to chief officers to decide how to deploy their resources. The House will understand that I cannot speculate about the White Paper, but some pointers were provided in the statement on 23 March. I can assure the House that the theme of the White Paper will be partnership between the police and public, and locally based and locally organised policing—so much was clear from the statement.

    Sheehy Report
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for consultation on the report of the Sheehy inquiry.
    Mr. Howard: The report will be published next week. I intend to ask for comments on its recommendations by the end of September.
    Mr. McFall: This heavily leaked report has caused nothing but public fear and concern. What benefits will
    436
    performance-related pay and crime league tables bring to the maintenance of public tranquillity and good community relations? Is this not a privatisation too far? In their haste to privatise, the Government will do nothing but destroy the public ethic.
    Mr. Howard: I shall certainly not comment on leaks of the report long before it has been published, but I hope that there will be no knee-jerk reactions of the sort that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman on the part of the Labour party or from any other quarter. I hope that everyone will recognise that we must have up-to-date arrangements within which the police can operate, give their best and be able to wage the war against crime more effectively. That is the purpose of all the reforms that we have in train, including those on which Sir Patrick Sheehy will report next week.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend know whether the Sheehy inquiry has been looking into the possible recruitment to the police force of Army officers who are unfortunately available as a result of the "Options for Change" policy? Does he agree that those officers could probably provide the high fliers that the police need so much? Is he aware, however, of the resistance of this idea on the part of the more stick-in-the-mud elements in the police? Can this matter be raised in the consultations?
    Mr. Howard: I have a great deal of sympathy with that point. It can certainly be raised in the consultations on the Sheehy report. As to whether it is dealt with in that report, I fear that we shall have to wait until next week.

    Miss Hilda Murrell (Murder)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him to reopen the case of the murder of Miss Hilda Murrell of Shrewsbury.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations about the case from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), from the publishing company Simon and Schuster, and from Mr. Gary Murray.
    Mr. Dalyell: With the publication of Gary Murray's book "Enemies of the State" by the reputable publishing house of Simon and Schuster, and with the reopening of the police investigation, should not the Home Office deal with the question of whether taxpayers' money was involved in what Chief Detective Superintendent David Cole, in the course of a three-hour interview with me, described as a brutal and callous murder? In the light of the answer by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), then Minister of State, Home Office, on 19 December 1984 in the Consolidated Fund debate, and again in an Adjournment debate in June 1985, is there not an obligation on the Home Office to take a deep interest in these tragic events?
    Mr. Wardle: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of the misuse of public funds in this regard, I hope that he will bring it to the Home Office. No such evidence is available at the moment. West Mercia police have always been willing to consider new evidence in this unsolved case if it should come to light. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the

    437
    Home Office will keep abreast of any developments arising from West Mercia's review of Mr. Murray's latest allegations. I hope that it will help the hon. Gentleman and the House if I say that nothing has come to light yet that would cause me to depart from the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw)—when he was a Home Office Minister—in a letter dated 28 December 1984, when he asserted that allegations about the security services being involved in Miss Murrell's death were totally without foundation. The situation has not changed.

    Sentencing
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office what representations he has received regarding sentencing; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: I have received a large number of letters expressing concerns about sentencing. I take those concerns extremely seriously. As my hon. Friend will know, proposals are currently before the House to enhance the ability of the courts to deal appropriately and effectively with those convicted of criminal offences.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the mounting public concern about children below the age of criminal responsibility who are none the less persistent and dangerous criminals? Often they are aided and abetted by social services, which enables them to get off scot free and to commit crimes again. Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that, because of sentencing policy, these youngsters are acquiring a very dangerous disrespect for the criminal justice system? Will he, in his own words of a few moments ago, remedy the present situation without delay, for the help and protection of the public?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly understand and sympathise with the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is possible for young children who are below the age of criminal knowledge to be brought before the courts now, if they are beyond parental control. The most important lesson that children can learn is the difference between right and wrong—a lesson which cannot be learnt too soon, in their homes and schools. I welcome the efforts of all those who are increasingly drawing attention to its importance.
    Mr. Dowd: Does the Home Secretary agree that, while it is critically important that we have a sentencing policy that both reflects the severity of the offence and punishes the wrongdoer, it is also important that we have a judicial system that does not inflict sentences on people who are patently innocent? I wrote to the Home Secretary some days ago requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the issues arising from the Court of Appeal judgment, a fortnight ago, in respect of my constituents Lisa and Michelle Taylor. When will the Home Secretary respond to my request for an urgent meeting, and when can we consider in full the damning indictments of the conduct of the Metropolitan police and certain sections of the press?
    Mr. Howard: Of course it is true that we must have a system of criminal justice that both acquits the innocent and convicts the guilty. The hon. Gentleman's request is under consideration in my Department.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of a recent incident on the Weston estate in Macclesfield, where local responsible, sensible people unfortunately had to take the law into their own hands in dealing with a persistent young juvenile offender, who has appeared before the courts on many occasions but who has been released back into the community? Will my right hon. and learned Friend act to ensure that the courts of this land, which currently cannot impose adequate sentences on persistent juvenile offenders, have the power to do so in the very near future, in order to prevent people being forced—for their own defence and in their own interests—to take the law into their own hands?
    Mr. Howard: I have made it abundantly clear that I am determined to make sure that the courts have the sentencing powers that they need to deal adequately and effectively with offenders. I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that we cannot allow people to take the law into their own hands. Members of the public can do a great deal to help the police without taking the law into their own hands. I am absolutely convinced that we will make progress in this area only if we can build an effective partnership between the public and the police, and if we do not leave the fight against crime entirely to the police. There is much that can be done short of people taking the law into their own hands. A part of that is making sure that the courts have adequate sentencing powers.
    Mr. Tony Banks: How can the Minister possibly talk about knowing the difference between right and wrong when a Minister gives a present of a watch to a crook, and other Ministers go round the world trying to get funding? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I can shout as loud as hon. Gentlemen. Did the Minister hear that question?
    Mr. Howard: I heard it, Madam Speaker. I thought that it was an astonishing contribution from the hon. Gentleman, whose association with the Greater London council, which did so much harm to law enforcement, law and order and policing while it had some vestigial responsibility in this capital of ours, is well known and will not be forgotten, at least by anyone on this side of the House.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to ensure that those who commit rapes and other sexual offences receive appropriate custodial sentences.
    Mr. Howard: We are ensuring that courts have the powers they need to impose severe penalties for serious offences. The Criminal Justice Act 1991, which was mocked by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) a few moments ago—I hope that his constituents will know that he mocked it—gives the courts power to pass longer sentences on violent and sexual offenders in order to protect the public from serious harm.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that recent cases have proved that the Attorney-General needs the power to appeal against lenient sentences? He mentioned the opposition of hon. Gentlemen to that measure. Is he aware that the recent decision to extend to custody the sentence of a young man convicted of a serious sexual offence was greeted with

    439
    enthusiasm by a number of hon. Gentlemen? Are we expecting a U-turn, or is this to be another matter to be "set aside" by hon. Gentlemen?
    Mr. Howard: If the Opposition were remotely consistent in their approach, we might expect a U-turn, but all we have at the moment are parrot cries of enthusiasm when the Attorney-General exercises the powers to which the Opposition were persistently opposed and complete silence from the Labour party as to whether they now, belatedly and reluctantly, recognise that we were right to give the Attorney-General those powers. I thought that even today the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) might admit that he was wrong to oppose giving the Attorney-General those powers, but he sits there in silence, despite the fact to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Ms Ruddock: Does the Home Secretary accept, further to his answer, that, in the longer-term interests of society, what happens to sexual offenders while in prison is equally important? Can he explain, therefore, why, when 2,000 inmates are eligible for sexual offender treatment programmes, provision has been made for a mere 300?
    Mr. Howard: I am very sorry that the hon. Lady did not respond to the invitation that I offered to her hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield a moment ago. Many people will have regretted the fact that she, too, chose to remain silent on that issue. On the question that she posed, that is a matter that I am prepared to look at. I am given to understand that the figures which the hon. Lady quoted are inaccurate, and I will look into their accuracy. I understand that we have a programme under way for dealing with the point which she raised, and we will pursue that.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a link between the spread of pornographic material and the growth in offences of rape and serious assault? Is he prepared to consider strengthening the law to prevent the spread of such material?
    Mr. Howard: We certainly need to look at the law in this area. I have not yet reached any conclusions on that matter, but I will certainly take my hon. Friend's point into account.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Does not the Secretary of State agree that there might be some improvement in this area of concern if it were compulsory for judges to undergo sexual awareness training?
    Mr. Howard: No.

    Security Information
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has had about the co-ordination of security information between police forces.
    Mr. Howard: My Department keeps closely in touch with police forces and the Security Service about these arrangements. Lead responsibility for intelligence work against Irish Republican terrorism in Great Britain was transferred to the Security Service in October and I am not persuaded that further changes are necessary.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at a time when crime is becoming ever more sophisticated, it is ridiculous that there is not one proper centre to co-ordinate intelligence between the 43 police forces in England and Wales? Can he give the House an undertaking that he will overhaul and streamline the system so that drug trafficking, terrorism and other vicious crimes do not flourish?
    Mr. Howard: I am as keen as my hon. Friend to make sure that such crimes do not flourish, but I am not satisfied that the present arrangements need to be changed in the way that he suggests. As I said a few moments ago, lead responsibility for intelligence work in terrorism has been transferred to the Security Service. The head of the anti-terrorist branch has a co-ordinating responsibility in relation to police work in this area. I am not satisfied that a case has been made for any change in those arrangements.,
    Mr. Trimble: May I urge the Home Secretary to reconsider what he has just said and to look again seriously at suggestions recently made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? It is clear that there is a need for more to be done. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is also clear that on both sides of the Irish sea the security services are not having the desired success? Consequently, there is merit in the suggestion that a senior Minister with authority throughout the United Kingdom should be appointed to tackle this issue.
    Mr. Howard: I am not persuaded that the hon. Gentleman's case has been made out. It would, for example, be very odd if we were to remove responsibility for security operations in the Province from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am not satisfied that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would constitute an improvement in the arrangements.
    Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied by the exchange of information between the Security Service and West Mercia police force in relation to the murder of Miss Hilda Murrell? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the author of a recent book, who has raised allegedly new evidence on this case, is in fact a dog handler for the RAF police, with Security Service experience of some 20 years ago, who has been misrepresented by the publishers of the hook as a serving member of the Security Service?
    Mr. Howard: I note my hon. Friend's comments. I have nothing further to add to what was said by my hon. Friend a few moments ago on this question.
    Mr. Skinner: What happened to the co-ordination between the security forces and the police force at the time that Asil Nadir decided to flee the country? Is it a fact that the British establishment and the Tory Government aided and abetted Asil Nadir to get out of the country, because he would have spilled the beans about all the Tory Ministers and Tory MPs if he had got into court?
    Mr. Howard: I shall leave others to comment upon the paranoia of the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theories. I am perfectly satisfied with the arrangements for co-ordination that have been in existence for some time, including during the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Probation Service
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the probation service is taking to work with the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Maclean: The probation service undertakes a wide range of partnerships with the voluntary sector to support effective programmes for dealing with offenders in the community. The Home Office currently provides over £20 million a year in grants to voluntary bodies to supplement the resources made available by probation committees. We greatly value the contribution that the voluntary sector is making in reducing crime in that and other ways.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many probation officers seem obsessed with community service as rehabilitation rather than punishment? Is it not small wonder that far too many persistent offenders see community service as a very soft option indeed and cock a snook at the law? Will he make sure in his discussions with probation officers that any future programmes instil a sense of discipline and responsibility?
    Mr. Mackan: Service in the community and community service orders should not be—and I will ensure that they are not—a soft option. The probation service can do a lot of good in the community by dealing with offenders who are sentenced. One such sentence is a community service order, and we will ensure that by no stretch of the imagination will it be regarded as a let-off.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today.
    Ms Quin: In view of the leaked letter in the Daily Mail today, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say where he thinks the borderline lies between a ministerial misjudgment and a resignation offence?
    The Prime Minister: I have stated before in the case to which the hon. Lady refers, and I reiterate today, that I believe that my hon. Friend has acted with complete propriety in raising with the Attorney-General concerns that had been put to him about Mr. Nadir's case. I have no criticism of my hon. Friend on that account, or of his performance as a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office.
    My hon. Friend has been to see me this afternoon. He told me that he deeply regretted the embarrassment being caused to the Government by continuing speculation about his role. On those grounds, and on those grounds alone, he asked me if he could stand aside from his duties. With regret, I have accepted his resignation.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: May I ask my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We are wasting valuable time.
    Mr. Bruce: As my right hon. Friend has personal knowledge of Nigeria, may I ask him to say what reaction Her Majesty's Government have to the declaration by the military regime in Nigeria that they will overturn the results of the general election for the president, particularly in view of the fact that all the international observers and internal monitors felt that the election was free and fair?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that this is an important matter. I wrote to President Babangida last week to support the transition to civilian rule. I deplore the military Government's subsequent decision to ignore the results of elections which British and other observers considered free and fair. We are, as a result, reviewing our relations with Nigeria, including new aid, and we have taken a number of immediate steps.
    We are withdrawing our military advisory team and will not provide new military training courses. We have suspended the issue of visas to members of the Nigerian armed forces and the privileged treatment of visa applications by Government officials. We are consulting European Community partners and other allies on possible further measures. I hope that the Nigerian Government will take full account of the strength of international feeling and will reconsider what I believe is a gravely mistaken decision.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it not deplorable that the lack of any industrial policy or of a proper strategy for our defence industries has resulted in a polarised choice between Rosyth and Devonport for the Trident contract and a loss of thousands of jobs at both yards? Why do the Government not accept that, for industrial and defence reasons, this country needs the capability and expertise of both dockyards and their highly skilled management and work force?
    The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention in that supplementary question precisely what the circumstances might be if the defence cuts that his party proposed should ever come into being. He proposed defence cuts that would probably have meant that we had no yards at all, no capacity to defend ourselves, very few soldiers, hardly a Navy and barely a plane.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it not a matter of record that the Government announced in the House in 1984, and repeated in 1985, that the refit contract would go to Rosyth and that such a commitment was repeated to the work force at the time of privatisation? What weight does the Prime Minister attach to specific promises given to either Rosyth or Devonport?
    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that at that time the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party were keen to scrap Trident and said so repeatedly. How odd it is, people may think, that the Opposition want to scrap military hardware on one day and then fight for it desperately on another day. One is bound to ask where their hearts really lie.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister accept, as he was reminded by the noble Lord Younger, who had responsibility in the Conservative Government, that a

    443
    specific commitment was given to the House in 1984? Does the Prime Minister accept that that is the case? If it is, what weight can anyone give to any undertaking that the Government give to anyone?
    The Prime Minister: In view of the total disconjunction between the Opposition's policies and what they are now saying, that sort of comment from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is barefaced cheek. I suggest that he sets that aside.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the construction industry has had a difficult time during the recent recession. Will he join me in welcoming the good news yesterday that orders for new housing are now up by nearly 30 per cent. and that building is going on across the country, including in my constituency? Will he join me in saying that that is good news for the construction industry and all those who work in it?
    The Prime Minister: I know that it has been a difficult time for our construction industry throughout the United Kingdom. That is why we announced special measures to help that industry in the autumn statement last year. I welcome the much better news that is becoming more apparent daily. It is good news for builders and for the economy as a whole. In construction, manufacturing, exports and on all sides, our prospects are improving and the economy is strengthening.
    Mr. Ashdown: Last night the Secretary of State for Social Security called for a widespread cross-party public debate on the problems created by our present mountain of debt and the implications for long-term rises in social spending. That is an interesting suggestion. What specific proposals does the Prime Minister have to make it a reality?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it perfectly clear that we are carrying out a review of social security and I understand that, in secret, the principal Opposition party is doing the same. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will also contribute to that debate and we shall be happy to receive any representations from them. However, the day that I get representations from the Liberal Democrats about any difficult decision will be a remarkable day indeed.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Will my right hon. Friend join me in rejecting the impudent talk about an industrial policy from the Labour party and welcome, for example, the success of QPL Holdings of Hong Kong and its new £42 million investment in south Wales? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is the significance in commercial and industrial prosperity of the concentration of enterprise and expertise which attracts orders and creates jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I note with interest that the Opposition scoff at fresh jobs for Wales. It has been a good week for Wales and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It shows how attractive Britain now is to inward investors. It shows also that the Labour party hates new jobs, wherever they may come from, if it feels
    444
    that any of the credit will rub off on the Government's policies. We intend to keep Britain attractive for inward investment. There will be no minimum wage, no works councils, no social chapter and none of the nonsense that we hear from the Opposition that represents their industrial policy.
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Coffey: Is the Prime Minister aware of the escalation in housing association rents, which is causing especial hardship to elderly people who are not entitled to full housing benefit? What has he to say to my constituent, Mrs. Riley, whose rent has increased from just under £26 a week to just over £50 a week? Does he think that that is totally unacceptable and what is he prepared to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: In this country, we have perhaps the most generous system of housing benefit that we have ever seen and if the hon. Lady genuinely wanted a response to her question, she should have provided me with details of Mrs. Riley's income so that I could have responded.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when Mr. Baldwin, in his day, was under assault from the press barons of that time, his retort was that the newspapers were seeking to exercise power without responsibility, which is the traditional role of the harlot?
    The Prime Minister: I will reply in a parody of the words of another great Englishman: Assault? I see no assault.
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Prime Minister share the sense of outrage at today's revelations that British taxpayers will have to foot a £1 million legal aid bill run up by that generous benefactor of the Tory party and bail bandit Mr. Asil Nadir, who does not seem to be short of a bob or two in northern Cyprus, at the same time as his Government are denying millions of people of modest means any access to legal aid at all? What is the Prime Minister prepared to do about that outrageous use of public money?
    The Prime Minister: It is extremely unusual to hear the Labour party worrying about the taxpayer—refreshing perhaps, but just a touch unusual. As for legal aid, the usual cry from the Opposition Benches is for more and more legal aid.
    Mr. Coe: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent education and industry initiative that encourages industry to make an input into the future direction of our educational needs? Does he agree that those people who are for ever claiming to speak on behalf of the country's manufacturing base, and the necessary skills for its survival, do so with no credibility whatever while they are still supporting the boycott of tests this year and the dismantling of our city technology colleges?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend's logic is unanswerable. I agree with him entirely. Opposition Members may claim to speak for industry—we build for it.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Campbell: In view of the Government's decision to cut the defence budget by 15 per cent. over the next five years, will the Prime Minister tell the House when he will announce a proper defence diversification strategy and prevent an appalling loss of skilled jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I can only assume that the hon. Lady was not here for the earliest part of Question Time or she may not have asked such a question. She should consider the impact of her own party's defence policies before she criticises ours.
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rowe: Can the Prime Minister advise me on how I might reply to a 73-year-old constituent, who is in frail health and is partially deaf and partially blind? She wrote to me about the review of the social security budget and said that the Opposition have no programme whatsoever except to take taxation up and that were this Government ever to be unseated the results would be unthinkable.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's constituent is very perceptive. I think that he should say to her that she can rest assured that the Government will stand by their commitment to the weak and vulnerable. Secondly, he could say to her that she should not believe the routine scares that come from Opposition Members day by day. Thirdly, he could tell her that the Labour party has no constructive ideas and, fourthly, he could tell her that we have no intention of doing other than remaining in government for the rest of this century and beyond.

Dockyards
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the future of the naval dockyards.
The House has been waiting to hear our proposals on the future of the royal dockyards, and in particular on the location of nuclear refitting. This matter has been under long and careful consideration and I am now ready to place our proposals before the House.
During the 1980s, the size of the nuclear submarine refit programme as a whole meant that all existing submarine docks at Devonport and Rosyth were required, and a new dock had to be provided for refitting Trident. We indicated at that time that the new facility was to be built at Rosyth. With the end of the cold war and the reduction in the size of the submarine and surface fleet, it became possible and desirable to consider new and less expensive solutions. Accordingly, in July 1991, some two years ago, the Ministry of Defence invited Devonport and Rosyth to make proposals for nuclear refitting work.
Since that time, we have subjected the proposals made by the two dockyard companies to the most detailed and intense scrutiny. We have had three proposals: two from Babcock Thorn Ltd.—one in respect of the new RD57 facility at Rosyth and the other for upgrading existing docks at Rosyth—and one from Devonport Management Ltd. in respect of the upgrading of existing docks at Devonport. The proposals have been evaluated for comparative purposes by the Ministry of Defence, supported by independent specialist advisers.
That evaluation has taken some time. I know that the decision has been keenly awaited, but I do not regret the time that has been taken. The fact is that the upgrade proposals that are now being considered cost more than £250 million less than those that we originally had under consideration. I make no apologies for allowing the competitive process to push the cost down, to the benefit of both the Royal Navy and the taxpayer. We were also keen to ensure that both dockyards had a full opportunity to put forward proposals on a fair and equal basis.
The scrutiny has, however, not been simply a cost comparison. Before we could consider the cost of the proposals, two conditions had to be fulfilled. The first was that the proposals had to be completely sound and technically well-founded. Our detailed examination has reassured us that the proposals from both yards can be relied on to produce facilities of the required standard and that both yards have the skills and the experience to carry out submarine and surface ship refitting. In the past 10 years, Devonport has refitted seven nuclear submarines and 72 surface ships; Rosyth has refitted five nuclear submarines and 79 surface ships, including 11 frigates and destroyers.
The second key consideration has been safety, which rightly must be subject to independent validation. Our detailed analysis over a period of months shows clearly that each of the three proposals should reach the very high standard that is required.
Turning to the comparison of the cost of the various proposals, our scrutiny has taken place against the background of the need to get the best possible value for money from the defence budget. In particular, I need to ensure—as do the chiefs of staff—that the proportion of
448
the defence budget spent on the support of the armed forces is kept as small as possible, so that the proportion that can go directly to the front line should be as large as possible. I am sure that the House will join with me in supporting that objective.
We have considered both the capital costs and the operating costs associated with the various proposals. With regard to capital costs, the results of the analysis show that our estimate, on a like-for-like basis, of the three proposals is as follows: the proposal to build new docks at Rosyth, known as RD57, would cost some £369 million on top of the £100 million already spent; the proposals for upgrading of docks in Rosyth would cost £248 million; and the proposals from Devonport would cost about £236 million. This shows that, despite the sums that have already been spent, the RD57 project—that is, a new purpose-built dock—is very much more expensive than either of the other two proposals, and I do not propose to consider it further. The two upgrade proposals are much closer in capital cost, but there is a clear difference, in Devonport's favour, of £12 million.
With regard to operating costs, we have looked at these over 15 years, by which time the capital work would have been completed, the necessary rationalisation taken place and the new arrangements settled down. Our analysis shows that, on operating costs, Devonport is again the cheaper yard, by a total of some £52 million over the period. Taking all those factors into account, the total difference between the two bids is £64 million in favour of Devonport. Those figures do not include redundancy costs, which again are less if Devonport is the nuclear yard.
Three days ago, we received a completely new suggestion from Babcock Thorn Ltd. That suggestion is that the number of docks where nuclear work can take place should be reduced from two to one, and that the emergency docking facility should be used as the nuclear defuelling and refuelling facility. When we received that suggestion, we had already spent several months in detailed consultation with both companies on their proposals in order to be able to report with confidence the figures I have quoted today. Our period of consideration was extended in January, in part to ensure that Babcock Thorn was able to propose an upgrading solution on the same basis as Devonport. It is quite unreasonable to produce completely new ideas so close to a decision which, if they were relevant, could have been presented at any time over the last six months. But, more important, we are not able to accept any proposal which would deprive the Trident submarines of a dedicated emergency docking facility for significant periods; which would mean that the single nuclear refuelling facility was used for all our submarines, so exposing us to unacceptable risks in the event of an incident or other difficulty; and which, indeed, is untested from a technical and safety point of view.
The view of the First Sea Lord, with which I agree, is that that suggestion imposes an unacceptable level of operational risk and that it should be ruled out. The same would apply to any proposal we received at this stage from Devonport based on the same engineering approach. The only way forward is for us to take a decision based on the analysis which we have before us.
The Government do not believe that it would be prudent to ignore the capital difference of £12 million and the overall difference of £64 million between the Devonport and Rosyth proposals. There are no other relevant factors that point decisively or conclusively to one

449
yard or the other. I am therefore announcing today our conclusion that, subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations, we shall proceed with the Devonport nuclear refitting facility proposals.
I now turn to our long-term plans for the future of Rosyth. I made it clear in my 9 February statement that our aim is to achieve a healthy competitive structure for non-nuclear refitting. We wish Rosyth to develop into a yard that will bid competitively for surface ship refits and other work. Rosyth already has considerable experience of surface ship work—for example, the highly successful refits of type 42 destroyers carried out over recent years—and we have every confidence in its ability to become a major and successful surface ship yard.
I am conscious of the fact that a significant period of transition will be required to help Rosyth to restructure so that it can concentrate on such work. To enable Rosyth to make that transition, we intend to continue with an allocated programme for 12 years, until 2005. Once nuclear work is concentrated at Devonport, the only allocation of surface ship refits will be to Rosyth; all other refit work will have to be won in competition.
The programme for Rosyth would comprise over half of surface warship refitting, including all aircraft carrier refits, virtually all type 42 destroyer refits and all Hunt class mine warfare vessel refits, as well as other refits of type 23 and type 22 frigates. After the year 2000, that programme will begin to taper down until 2005. These proposals mean that we expect Rosyth to be allocated responsibility for the refits of some 18 major warships. We expect Devonport—as the nuclear yard—to be allocated responsibility for the refits of some 12 nuclear submarines.
Employment at the yards is a matter primarily for the companies concerned. At present, there are some 3,700 people employed at Rosyth. Taking into account the allocated programme to which I have just referred, we estimate that there will be a reduction of about 450 in the work force as a direct result of reduced Ministry of Defence work. Employment on Ministry of Defence work should continue at about this level at least to the turn of the century. The allocation should also provide the basis for Rosyth to bid for extra work and to develop new markets. There is every reason for confidence that, given the skills of the work force and the traditionally high standard of their work, it will be possible for Rosyth to win work in competition, over and above the allocated programme, and that should increase employment beyond the levels I have outlined. Reductions in employment will not be confined to Rosyth. Because of the declining overall refit programme, we would expect reductions in the numbers employed at Devonport of about 350.
Given the benefit of competition, I am pleased to be able to say that, even during the period of an allocated programme of the kind I have mentioned, there will be a higher proportion of the refit programme available for competition than at present. That proportion will increase after the year 2000 and will apply to the whole of the surface ship refitting programme after 2005. Both dockyards, as well as shipbuilders, will be able to compete for that unallocated work.
Further information setting out the background to these conclusions will be contained in a consultative document which will be published in the near future to provide a basis for consultation with the parties concerned.
450
I believe that the proposals I have set out today will provide a healthy future for both yards. Trident submarines will carry the deterrent well into the next century. It is therefore essential that they be refitted to the high standards that the Royal Navy expects. The taxpayer equally has a right to expect value for money. My proposals achieve both these objectives, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. George Foulkes: As the Secretary of State for Defence has admitted, the statement is long overdue. The delay and the Government's indecision have caused great distress and division. The procedures adopted by the Ministry of Defence in considering the Trident refit have set yard against yard in the most divisive way, as with the helicopter landing ship, when what is needed is overall planning that gives priority to the defence and industrial needs of the whole country.
We have no doubt about the capacity of the work force at Devonport to carry out the Trident contract satisfactorily, and we acknowledge the sincerity of those in the south-west of England, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and Plymouth city council, who have argued their case powerfully and fairly. However, I am sure that they will accept that the decision is a bitter blow for the men and women of Rosyth. It is also a betrayal of the promises given by previous Tory Secretaries of State for Defence, as Lord Younger recently confirmed. The decision to—
Hon. Members: You would scrap it.
Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State's statement was heard in silence. I hope that all hon. Members during these exchanges will be heard civilly.
Mr. Foulkes: That defence commitment is there to provide free speech in this country, Madam Speaker. The decision announced today must also put the Secretary of State for Scotland in a difficult, if not untenable, position.
The Secretary of State for Defence must give some assurances by answering the following questions. First, as Ministry of Defence consultations have had little impact on the final decisions, will he say whether the latest Rosyth bid will be considered further during the consultation period? Will he also assure the House that the full defence assessment of the costs of both bids will be published in full—not just the totals given in his statement?
Will the Secretary of State also spell out what contractual obligations the Government will have for the refitting work at Rosyth on other vessels during the 12-year period? Such a guarantee is necessary because the Government's bland assurances have proved to be hollow. The work force at Rosyth are clearly not convinced by his promises and they deserve a firm and convincing guarantee.
Will the Secretary of State also say whether he has received an acknowledgment from Babcock Thorn that what he has announced will enable it to continue as a viable operation since, according to my count, he has guaranteed only 18 major ships in 12 years, whereas during the pact 10 years it has refitted 79 ships? Will he also say whether Babcock Thorn accepts his assessment of the work force that it can retain on the basis of future work from the Ministry of Defence?

451
Will the Secretary of State also assure us that if Babcock Thorn is for any reason unable or unwilling to continue with the contract at Rosyth, the Ministry of Defence will ensure continued operation of the yard? He has agreed that an alternative to Devonport is vital for reasons of competition; it is also necessary for the preservation of our strategic capacity.
This is yet another announcement from the Ministry of Defence that will result in workers losing their jobs—in this case, 800 thrown on the scrap heap in Rosyth and Devonport [Interruption.] I am coming to that. During the past three years, approximately 125,000 defence-related jobs have been lost all over the United Kingdom because of defence cuts, yet the Government continue to reject the call for a strategy for defence conversion and diversification, which was made again today by one of my hon. Friends.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for the future of Rosyth dockyard, which is now the largest industrial employer in Scotland. There is absolutely no doubt that it will be under the gravest threat if the Secretary of State, because of his adherence to the free market dogma of privatisation, contractorisation and competitive tendering, fails to give the commitments for which I have asked. I urge him to put the security and economy of the nation before political dogma and to give those guarantees to the House.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman referred to previous statements made in the 1980s. In the nicest possible way, may I remind him that in July 1987 he signed an early-day motion that called on the Government "to cancel Trident" in the light of the changing international climate and impending arms reductions? Does he not realise that, if that recommendation had been accepted by the Government, not only would there have been no nuclear work at either Rosyth or Devenport but the 3,000 civilian jobs in the west of Scotland—arising from Faslane and Coulport—would not have been available? The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what would have been the consequences of his advice. Of course, I have regretted the uncertainty that has been perpetuated over the past few months, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and I know that the House certainly will, that the saving of some £250 million achieved as a result of the process must be a factor that weighs heavily.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that today's announcement will be a bitter blow for the people of Rosyth. Of course I recognise that fact, but I believe that those people will also be relieved and pleased to see that the Government are committed to a two-dockyard solution. As the hon. Gentleman himself confirmed, total job losses as a result of today's announcement will be about 800 at both yards over the next few years.
The purpose of the period of consultation is to enable all who are interested in and affected by the proposals to make suggestions to the Government so that we can see whether they are matters that should have been considered, yet were not taken into account, or they are other relevant matters. In the consultative document, we shall seek to spell out as much information as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about contractual obligations for the allocated programme. That programme will work in future on exactly the same basis as we have
452
used over the past few years. We enter negotiations with the yard; we reach agreement on a price; and on that basis the work is allocated. That has been true of both Rosyth and Devonport, and there will be no change in that position.
The hon. Gentleman misunderstood one aspect when he compared the 18 major warships that I mentioned in my statement with the 79 ships that Rosyth has completed over the past few years. He must remember that most of the ships that Rosyth has completed in recent years were fairly minor vessels.
Mr. Foulkes: But very important.
Mr. Rifkind: Indeed, they are very important, but the 18 vessels to which I referred will be major warships. To that number has to be added a large number of smaller vesels, for which Rosyth will continue to be responsible.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) refer earlier today to what he anticipated would be an announcement of thousands of job losses associated with Rosyth and Devonport? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the total number of jobs that the Ministry of Defence assesses will be lost are 450 at Rosyth and 350 at Devonport?
Mr. Rifkind: I have to say that there has been a lot of scaremongering both in the south-west of England and in Scotland about the consequences of the decision. As we all really know, both companies have been primarily interested in obtaining the monopoly work that Trident represents and, in order to advance their campaign, there has been a tendency in both parts of the country to exaggerate the consequences of failure. I fully accept that, if we had not been able to announce that we believe in retaining two dockyards in order to ensure competition in the future and if we had not been able to provide the allocated programme for Rosyth, there would, indeed, have been serious and substantial consequences for jobs. However, I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that, in view of the total work that will be available to Rosyth, and the man hours that it will require, the only factor that could change the job figures that I have mentioned would be improvements in productivity at either Rosyth or Devonport.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was Secretary of State for Scotland when his predecessor, Lord Younger, gave an undertaking that the submarine work would go to Rosyth. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman endorse that undertaking at that time; if so, what does he say in response to Lord Younger's contention that an announcement in the terms of his statement today constitutes a "breach of faith"? In the light of the departure from that undertaking, what reliance can people at Rosyth place on the undertakings that the Secretary of State has given today?
Finally, there was no reference in his statement to either strategic or operational considerations. Was any consideration given to the location of the submarine refitting work at Rosyth, in close proximity to Faslane, where the nuclear submarines are to be based?
Mr. Rifkind: My noble Friend Lord Younger was concerned—he was perfectly entitled to be concerned—

453
about the job implications that would flow from whatever decisions might be taken on submarine matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, as is my noble Friend, that, because of the basing of Trident in the west of Scotland, some 3,000 civilian jobs have been created and will continue to be available for the life of the Trident programme. He will also be aware that, as a result of the statement today, the employment situation in Rosyth will remain healthy for the foreseeable future.
The strategic situation is an important matter that needed to be addressed. The view of the Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence is that the strategic considerations can be satisfied by the placing of Trident work at either Rosyth or Devonport. As to the other matters, the hon. and learned Gentleman might reflect on the vitriolic opposition to Trident which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) professed and which he sought to persuade his Liberal colleagues to adopt in years past.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. and learned Friend was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task. It was clear that, whichever dockyard failed to get the order, there would be recriminations from those who supported it. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the care with which he has gone into the issues before making his decision.
Clearly, the Select Committee on Defence will want to examine the figures behind the decision and be reassured that the amount of work that will be given to Rosyth will ensure that we have a two-dockyard future. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could tell us when the detailed figures will be available so that we can examine them and get the reassurance that we need.
Mr. Rilkind: The decision which we reached and which I announced today was a difficult and painful one because we were conscious of the fact that, whatever decision was reached, it would have sad consequences for the other yard. I hope that hon. Members will understand that, because the Cabinet reached its conclusion this morning, it is not possible to have the consultative document available today. Of course, we will make it available in the near future and I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Henry McLeish: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that today's statement will be met with profound disappointment by the workers at Rosyth and their families? There will be widespread anger about the breach of faith, betrayal of promises and classic Tory treachery. What do we tell the young apprentices at Rosyth about what will happen after 2005? Can we believe anything that the Secretary of State says, in view or what has happened in the past? Does he acknowledge the comments made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Glasgow Herald on 14 May 1993, "Rosyth will survive. I want Rosyth. to survive with Trident. There is a level playing field. It is half time and we are up three goals to nil."? Why was he defeated yesterday by 11 goals to one? What a team and what a disgrace. Both Secretaries of State should consider resigning.
Mr. Rilkind: I would say to the young apprentices at Rosyth that there are few other firms or industries that have an allocated programme of work for the next 12 years. The programme will provide a substantial amount of work and ensure that, over the next 12 years, Rosyth will have the time that it requires to adapt to a surface ship
454
role. It already has considerable experience in that area—as I said earlier, over the years it has refitted no fewer than 79 surface ships.
The hon. Gentleman should share my belief in the quality of work and expertise at Rosyth. If he has the interests of the yard in mind—I am sure that he has—I suggest that he will do no service to the young people at Rosyth if he implies that the 12 years of guaranteed work somehow means that they have no prospect of a long-term future. He might end up willing the end that he so obviously wishes to avoid.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the decisions will be received with eager anticipation and enormous relief not only in the Plymouth travel-to-work area but throughout the west country? Does he agree that securing the Trident refit contract reflects enormous credit on the management and work force of Devonport Management Ltd.? They have put together an attractive package which secured the contract on the basis of the defence needs of the nation and value for money.
Mr. Rifkind: I can certainly confirm that both companies made their proposals with a great deal of care and preparation. It fell to us to take the difficult decision of identifying where the conclusion should lie. I said in my statement that the consideration that had to prevail was the gap of some £64 million between the total cost of the two projects. In all other aspects, the position was too close to call on the merits of either bid.
Mr. John McWilliam: Given that the savings to be made in future are speculative and that the investment of £130 million in Rosyth will not now be used and has been poured down the drain, will the Secretary of State tell us who were the specialist external advisers who assisted him in making that difficult decision?
Mr. Rifkind: The money invested in Rosyth was for the RD57 new-build project. It is an inescapable fact that, even if one takes that investment into account, more than £350 million would remain to be spent on Rosyth for a new-build dock. That is £100 million more than the upgrade proposal at either Rosyth or Devonport. Therefore, I do not believe that any serious arguments can be made that it would have been sound or responsible to continue with the new-build project, even taking into account the money already spent. We considered the matter on that basis, but that was the unavoidable conclusion.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, although there will be bitter disappointment in Rosyth at the fact that it did not land the Trident contract, there will also be a great sense of relief that together my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence can guarantee Rosyth's long-term future? Does he further agree that Conservative Members should take no lectures from the Labour party on our commitment to Rosyth? In particular, we will not take lectures from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who has spent his entire political career campaigning against Trident and talking down Rosyth and its work force.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Dunfermline,East was, indeed, a passionate opponent of Trident. If his views had been accepted, neither the 3,000 jobs in the west of Scotland nor any jobs in nuclear work in any other part of the country would exist.
Mr. Alex Salmond: When the Secretary of State for Defence heard about the nuclear alert at Faslane last weekend, did he recall the words of Lord Younger when he said that he had sold the siting of nuclear bases in Scotland by making the specific commitment that the associated work would go to Rosyth? That being the case, why should people in Scotland today take the Rifkind combination of radioactivity in Faslane and redundancies in Fife? Is the commitment to Rosyth today as firm as the commitment to Ravenscraig that was accepted in 1987?
If, as Lord Younger says, the primary issue here is faith, how does the Secretary of State for Defence have the brass neck to remain in office? Why is not the Secretary of State for Scotland taking stock of his position?
Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland played a major part in ensuring that Rosyth had an important future to which to look forward and that the job implications were as modest as I was able to state earlier. If the Labour party wishes to forget its past policies, the hon. Gentleman might at least admit the current policies of the Scottish National party. Those policies not only would have been of little benefit to Rosyth but would have destroyed 3,000 jobs associated with Faslane and Coulport. In recent weeks, the SNP has been noticeably quiet about the matter. We all know perfectly well why. None of the defence-related jobs would last a moment if the hon. Gentleman's views were endorsed.
Mr. George Kynoch: I am disappointed for, and sympathise with, the management and staff at Rosyth, who must be disappointed after having put so much work into their bid for the contract. I welcome the positive package that my right hon. and learned Friend has provided. I am disappointed that the Opposition seem to have little faith in the ability of management and staff to build on that programme. Until the year 2000, will the allocated programme be sufficient to enable the yard to be profitable without attracting extra work, or will it be required to bid for non-allocated work to be profitable?
Mr. Rifkind: The allocated programme will continue until 2005, not the year 2000. I am not in a position to comment immediately on the profitability of Babcock Thorn, which is the contractor at the present time. The contractual arrangements with Babcock Thorn will continue for two or three years unless they are renewed. Just as Devonport in the next few years will benefit from the nuclear work, which is in effect an allocated programme because of its monopoly characteristics, so Rosyth will benefit from the large programme that I have announced today. That means that, for example, aircraft carriers such as Ark Royal and Invincible will be available for refitting in Rosyth. That was not the case in the past and is well worth reflecting on.
Mr. David Jamieson: On behalf of my constituents in Devonport, may I say that the statement that the Secretary of State has made today
456
about the nuclear refit contract will be greeted in my constituency and the south-west with great relief at the knowledge that many thousands of jobs will be secure? That sense of relief will be tempered by the knowledge that many jobs will be lost in Scotland.
Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the way in which the tendering process has been handled, as it has caused much distress and worry in both Plymouth and Scotland? Will he review the way in which contracts are awarded to prevent communities such as those in my region and in Rosyth from suffering the sort of agony that they have endured in the past six to eight months?
Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that the period of uncertainty has been a problem; in ideal circumstances, we would want to avoid it, but the responsibility does not lie purely with the Government. Over the past six months, both Devonport and Rosyth have brought forward several modifications to their proposals and requested us to take them into account before reaching a decision, which we have done. That has been an important factor. We could have refused to consider them, but I feel that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain that the case put forward by his local community had not been fully considered. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I welcome today's historic decision, which will delight the west country taxpayers—as well as the Royal Navy—who believe in fair competition and the principles of the citizens charter. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that unemployment levels in the west country, which are currently higher than those in Scotland, will remain at the same level? Will Devonport Management Ltd. be allowed to release the land that is surplus to its requirements so that it can be used for industrial development and further job creation?
Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that we all wish to welcome those benefits. The matter of most important comment today is that, because of the overall implications of our announcement, the reduction in employment at both Devonport and Rosyth will be far more modest than many anticipated or predicted. Clearly, with the Royal Navy declining in size, it is inevitable that fewer people will be required for refit work, but a reduction in employment in Devonport of 350 and in Rosyth of 450 between now and the turn of the century can be absorbed in both communities without significant difficulty.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his announcement will be widely welcomed by my constituents and will be seen as a turning point in the economic fortunes of the west country? He will understand that I also wish to pay tribute to the skill and tenacity of the management and work force of Devonport Management Ltd. in winning the contract race. Will he confirm that it is not just my constituents or DM L that will benefit from the announcement? The British taxpayer will also benefit from the excellent decision which he has made today.
Mr. Rifkind: Not only the taxpayer but the Royal Navy will benefit from the decision, which had to be taken on the basis of the relative cost of the two tenders. It was a hard-fought compaign by both yards and one pays tribute

457
to the tenacity of both companies. At the end of the day, the significant difference between the costs of the two proposals proved to be the decisive factor.
Mrs. Irene Adams: The Secretary of State will recognise that there was concern not only at Rosyth but in many constituencies throughout Scotland where there are ancillary jobs connected with the work at Rosyth. Did he make his estimate of 450 redundancies with Babcock Thorn? What is his estimate of job losses in ancillary industries throughout Scotland as a result of this decision?
Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, we have not been able to inform Babcock Thorn of the details of the proposals before informing the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Opposition Members should not be surprised about that; they would have been concerned had it been otherwise. We know Babcock Thorn's expectations of job changes over the next few months and years. The company has been contemplating certain redundancies that are totally unconnected with Ministry of Defence work, but that has nothing to do with Ministry of Defence work—it is something on which Babcock Thorn will need to comment. We have been able to determine the volume of work which the allocated programme that I am announcing today represents. We know the number of man hours of work it represents and how many employees it has required in the past; therefore, unless there are improvements in productivity, which would be welcome, the figures are a consequence of the decision have announced today.
Dr. John Reid: No one ever thought that it would be an easy decision, but the manner in which the Secretary of State has conducted it and his previous record on commitments have left him wide open to accusations of a lack of defence strategy, months of dithering and distress and years of deceit, particularly to Rosyth and Scotland.
Will the Secretary of State answer one or two simple questions? The first has already been put to him. When he was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about the remarks made by Lord Younger, he commented that naturally Lord Younger was distressed, but that was not the question. Did not the noble Lord say that the decision which has been taken today would be a breach of faith for the Scottish
458
people by the Tory Government? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, when that initial promise was made, he was in the Scottish Office and was 100 per cent. party to the decision that he has rescinded today?
Secondly, if the facts and figures are so obvious and were put out in such detail today to the Cabinet, will the Secretary of State guarantee that they will be available to the House and right hon. and hon. Members, not tomorrow, not next week, but today, right at the beginning of the consultation period?
Thirdly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm to us the following simple figures? How much expenditure is he committed in his proposals to making, first, at Devonport and, secondly, at Rosyth by the year 2005? Those figures were missing today and will be extremely interesting. I have no doubt that will continue questioning, but we want the ammunition made public and not kept behind the closed doors of the Cabinet so that genuine consultation can take place.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might have begun his comments by confessing that he, too, called for cancellation of Trident in past years.
Dr. Reid: It is another lie. It was not the Trident system.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his question. I have allowed him to do so. He must now contain himself and hear the answer.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the number of Trident boats determines the number of jobs and the refitting work that is required, and the hon. Gentleman's opposition to a crucial part of the Trident programme does not square well with his comments today.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the views of my noble Friend Lord Younger. He should consider the views of my noble Friend, who, in his letter to The Times, said:
"I know that many in Scotland would therefore feel badly let down if a major part of these jobs were now to be removed from Scotland."
The consequence of the statement today is that employment in Rosyth and in Devonport is broadly the same. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are now moving on to the business statement.

Business of the House
4.15 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week. The business will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 JUNE—Opposition day (15th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Economic, Environmental and Proliferation Implications of a Decision to bring THORP into operation" in the name of the Liberal Democrats; followed by a debate on regional development in the name of Plaid Cymru.
Motion relating to the first report, Session 1991–92, of the Select Committee on Members' Interests entitled "Registration and Declaration of Members' Financial Interests" (HC 326).
Debate on the third report, Session 1990–91, of the Select Committee on Members' Interests entitled "Parliamentary Lobbying" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House (HC 586).
TUESDAY 29 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 30 JuNE—Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
THURSDAY I JULY—There will be a debate on law and order on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 2 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 5 JULY—Opposition day (16th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "The Continuing Closure of Coal Mines" on an Opposition motion.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 30 June at 10.30 am to consider European Community Documents as follows: Committee A, documents Nos. 4116/92 and 6227/93 relating to colours for use in foodstuffs; Committee B, documents Nos. COM (92) 84, 9973/92, 5456/93 and 6006/93, relating to structural funds.
[ Wednesday 30 June:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 4116/92 and 6227/93, colours for use in foodstuffs; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 24-ix (1991–92), HC 79-xxx ( 1992–93).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: COM (92) 84, 9973192, 5456/93 and 6006/93; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-ii ( 1992–93 ), HC 79-xiv ( 1992–93), HC 79-xxvi ( 1992–93 ) and HC 79-xxx ( 1992–93 ).]
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: May I remind the Leader of the House that there is a long-standing request for a debate on the Government's public expenditure programme? As I have reminded him in the past, we would like to debate the public expenditure programme in its full glory before it is hacked to pieces in the process of Cabinet discussion.
In terms of the use of public expenditure, I also ask the Leader of the House to seek a statement from his colleagues about the use of legal aid. The right hon. Gentleman will be conscious of the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House at the suggestions in the press today that—at a time when many people on low
460
incomes are being denied access to legal aid because of the Government's decisions—Mr. Nadir may benefit from what may be as much as £1 million of taxpayers' money in legal aid. Many hon. Members would like some information about that.
On the matter of law enforcement—particularly as there is to be a debate on law and order next week—I wish to raise a matter with the Leader of the House that has been raised with him a number of times before. May we have as early a statement as possible about the Government's plans for the structure of the police force, as rumours have caused considerable anxiety across the country? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information on whether there will be a statement soon on the Sheehy report, which has implications for the morale and development of the police service?
Mr. Newton: On the first and much repeated request concerning public expenditure, I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find Government time next week for a debate. I continue to find some conflict in the demands from the right hon. Lady who, were Ito announce a debate on public expenditure, would almost certainly demand a Supply day. I am meeting her Supply day requests at a fairly rapid rate—roughly once a week.
The right hon. Lady will not have to wait beyond the end of next week for the satisfaction of her demands in respect of a statement on law enforcement, but I.cannot precisely predict the day on which they will be met—except to say that she will have an opportunity to debate this extensively on Thursday.
Sir Michael Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing number of problems to do with human rights that some of us have had a chance to see in Belgrade and Zagreb? Will he find time to discuss those matters, perhaps within the wider context of a foreign affairs debate?
Mr. Newton: I well recognise my hon. Friend's concern and the opportunities that he has with the Inter-Parliamentary Union to observe these matters at first hand—and to express his own well-known concern about them. I cannot give him a specific undertaking for a debate of the kind that he suggests, but I shall bear his request in mind.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House has already referred to the pressure on the time of the House. May we have an early statement arising out of my question last week about the reform of the scrutiny of legislation for Northern Ireland? We need proper scrutiny, not a charade.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous letter, following our misunderstanding arising out of last week's question. I am afraid that I cannot give him the promise he seeks; but the debate that is about to take place would seem to offer him the chance to raise the points about which he is concerned.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: Would my right hon. Friend consider holding a further debate on the financing of political parties? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is a great advocate of the principle of the right to reply—indeed, he introduced a Bill for that very purpose? Given the unsubstantiated charge that he made in Tuesday's debate, would it not be right to

461
hold another debate to give Ministers a chance to reply to what was a cowardly charge, because it was made when the President of the Board of Trade was recovering from a heart attack?
Mr. Newton: I am not quite sure whether I would like to make again the speech that I made on Tuesday evening—I do not know how the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would feel about making hers again. I certainly take my hon. Friend's point, however. In the course of that debate, I observed, probably in more vigorous language, that I found it rather strange that the hon. Member for Hammersmith should repeat his allegations in the face of the clear statement by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, which I read out no less than twice in the course of the debate.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In requesting an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for National Heritage, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to information that I have received from a highly reliable source to the effect that it has been decided to abolish "News at Ten" and replace it with an ITN news bulletin at 6.30 pm? That would mean no news on the ITV network after 6.30 pm, and no news on the commercial network after 7 pm. That in turn will mean that the ITV network will not be fulfilling its national responsibilities. It is essential that we have a statement from the Government on this matter.
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly put that suggestion to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, but that is not to be taken as my assent to the proposition. My initial reaction is that this is primarily a matter for the broadcasters, not for the Secretary of State. They should determine at what times the news is broadcast.
Mr. Peter Luff: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has received the same sort of vigorous representations as I received on Saturday in my constituency surgery from my local myalgic encephalomyelitis support group. If he has, he will understand why I attach such importance to an urgent debate in the House on that subject. ME sufferers are concerned about the detailed implications of the current benefits review and about some of the attitudes displayed by the Department of Health. Such a debate would do a great deal to reassure a large group of people about the importance that the House attaches to their problems.
Mr. Newton: I have not recently had representations of that sort, but as a constituency Member and based on my long ministerial experience in health and social security, I am certainly aware of the anxieties to which my hon. Friend refers. He will probably know that a task force is being set up, with representatives from the Royal College of General Practitioners, ME voluntary organisations and the Department of Health, with a view to looking at the existing literature and research and to disseminating information to health care professionals in a way that we hope will significantly aid the treatment and care of people suffering from ME.
People suffering from ME, in the same way as those suffering from any other disease with disabling effects, would be entitled to benefit if it is shown that they are incapable of work.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to decisions made last week in the Paris Commission by the committee dealing with European environmental issues? Having learned that the atmospheric discharge of nuclear toxics would be increased by 1,100 per cent. and that maritime discharges would increase by 900 per cent., the committee passed a resolution asking the British Government to re-examine the introduction and commissioning of the THORP plant at Sellafield, and to arrange an independent inquiry on the real environmental effects. Moreover, the Nuclear Information Centre in Tokyo has said that the permitted level of discharge in the British Isles is five times the level permitted in Japan.
Given that this environmental problem affects all of us, may we have a general debate on the effects of the nuclear industry on the environment?
Mr. Newton: I assume that the hon. Gentleman was present during my statement. The first debate that I announced—for next Monday, which is an Opposition day—will deal with precisely that subject:
"the economic, environmental and proliferation implications"
of bringing THORP into operation. That should give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity he seeks.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we can have a debate on defence immediately after the publication of the White Paper, which is imminent? Is he aware that last week's defence debate was considerably delayed? Is he further aware that a debate next week would give hon. Members from the south-west an opportunity to point out that they have always supported the nuclear deterrent, and the Trident programme in particular?
It might also give our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence an opportunity to tell the House whether he was influenced by the fact, and by the corresponding fact that most of those lobbying for Rosyth from Scottish constituencies have been opposed to the Trident programme in the past?
Mr. Newton: I imagine that a number of people have observed the facts cited by my hon. Friend in the second part of his question. As for the first part, he will know that it is normal practice for the Select Committee on Defence to have an opportunity to study and report on the defence estimates before they are debated. That must obviously be an influential factor in the determination of the timing of such a debate.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement and an apology next week from the Secretary of State for Education, who has persistently accused Labour-controlled local authorities of preventing fair discussion of any opt-out proposals? May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 2209?
[That this House condemns the Chairman of Governors at Wibsey First School in Bradford for failing to ensure that all governors were notified of a meeting to discuss opting out, failing to ensure, as promised, that the teachers, who voted by 18 to two against, would have their views conveyed to parents, failing to comply with the 1988 Act by providing a true and accurate record of those eligible to vote when requested to do so by a parent-governor, censoring the material of the opposition group of parents and governors, changing the date of voting so that a meeting to discuss the

463
issue was to be held after ballot papers were issued rather than before, as had been agreed; condemns this record of cheating and chicanery which denies the proper conduct of the democratic process; and calls on the Secretary of State for Education to repudiate the actions of the Conservative Chair of Governors.]
As the motion explains, the Conservative chairman of Wibsey First school, in my constituency, has engaged in considerable chicanery by changing the times of meetings and preventing teachers who voted 18 : 2 against opting out from conveying their views to parents. He has also engaged in a host of other activities designed to destroy the democratic process.
It is time that the Secretary of State accepted that any chicanery comes from the Conservatives involved, not from members of the Labour party, who are trying to present a fair case. That is not happening in Wibsey First school.
Mr. Newton: Let me leave the politics aside and deal with the practicalities. The arrangements for balloting parents on such matters are the responsibility of the governing body of the school; in those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to comment. However, it is open to those who have complaints—as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) clearly has—to write to the Department setting out the grounds for those complaints, which will then be considered.
Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the light of Tuesday's debate,
464
when Labour Members—if I may paraphrase—made silly buggers of themselves, many Conservative Members wish that every day was an Opposition day? Does he agree, however, that, given the importance of the issues that might have been debated on Tuesday, fewer days should now be allocated to Labour Members, until they learn to behave like a responsible Opposition?
Mr. Newton: I suppose that half of me finds that an attractive suggestion, but the other half has not quite reached the stage of wanting to blow up the usual channels.
Madam Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) of "Erskine May's" words:
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
Mr. David Winnick: As regards Monday's debate on Members' interests, would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for the letters that were written by Conservative Members to the Attorney-General about Mr. Nadir's case to be put in the Library? Would it not be appropriate for us to see precisely why Conservative Members with no constituency interest wrote to the Attorney-General, instead of just reading about the matter in the newspapers from time to time?
Mr. Newton: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the motion on Monday is concerned with proposals from the Select Committee for clarifying the rules for the Register. I suggest that it will he best if the debate is confined to that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are now going to move on.
4.31 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence earlier today, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision today by the Cabinet on the Trident refit contract and its adverse effect on the economy of Scotland."
First, it is clear from the reaction to the statement that there is widespread concern in the House that the decision made is contrary to previous undertakings by Defence Ministers that the Trident refit would go to Rosyth. Secondly, there is a need for the Government to give further details of how the decision was arrived at, to explain the economic and financial justification for the decision, and to outline what action is to be taken to protect the interests of the workers whose jobs are now threatened. Finally, there is a need for the House to consider how today's decision will jeopardise the security and defence of the country.
Rosyth is the biggest single industrial employer in Scotland, and its subcontractors and suppliers employ many thousands more. The Government have a duty to explain and defend their decision to the House, and to do so today.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision today by the Cabinet on the Trudent refit and its effect upon the Scottish economy."
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Member is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House? I require 40 Members standing.
The motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until 7 o'clock tonight, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.
The leave of the House having been given, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until 7 o'clock this day.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that it would be helpful and for the convenience of the House if, in the light of your decision, I said that the Government would not, in these circumstances, proceed with the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993—that is, the second item of Northern Ireland business—this evening.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to thank the Leader of the House for that statement.
Madam Speaker: That is most helpful. We should now make progress.

Points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am very much aware of the effect that the recent announcements have on people in Scotland, but are you aware that, in two or three days, the shipyard of Cammell Laird—a Scottish name—in Birkenhead is to close? That has a significant effect on the economy of Merseyside, and I put this hypothetical question: if I asked for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, would you grant it?
Madam Speaker: The question may be hypothetical, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take these matters very seriously. He may have raised that point in some joviality, but I take such things seriously, and I will consider any Standing Order No. 20 application that he puts to me.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Reported in the newspapers today is a copy of a letter sent by a Member of Parliament to an officer of the Crown. I need not say which letter it is, because all know about it. What concerns me gravely is that this letter has been intercepted and leaked. It can have been leaked only by the sender, the receiver, or a firm of accountants that carried out a raid on a certain gentleman's house. That must be a breach of privilege. I ask you, as the Speaker of this House, to set in motion inquiries to ascertain who leaked and who——
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman mentioned privilege. If he thinks that this is a matter of privilege, he must write to me, not raise it on the Floor of the House. I have not seen the letter. I know nothing about it. I shall look at his letter when it comes to me.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (WALES)
    Mr. Barry Jones, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Dr. John Marek, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Roy Hughes and Mr. Martyn Jones, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Wales, discrimination against disabled persons on the grounds of their disability; and for connected purposes: 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 215.]
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  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 Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[ Mr. Kirkhope.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Act 1974
  4.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
  This draft order renews for another 12 months the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, by which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. It has become customary over the years to give the House an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the previous year and it is my intention to do the same again this afternoon.
  Last year in the equivalent debate I said that I was committed to achieving the goal of a peaceful, just and prosperous way of life for all the people of Northern Ireland. While there has been progress, despite many factors pulling in the opposite direction, I must of course acknowledge with regret that peace, justice and prosperity do not as yet prevail for all in Northern Ireland.
  Violence, injustice and loss continue to be inflicted by evil means and by evil people. They have struck no less viciously than elsewhere at communities where the people have long lived together in peaceful harmony and prosperity. I think of Coleraine, among others. The House shares the anger, the grief and the resolution of the victims, and of all the other victims and their families.
  The ruthless use of violence for political ends remains the most malign and dangerous obstacle in our path. The threat to everybody's safety and security remains serious from terrorists at both extremes. The House will recall many of the 75 brutal murders by terrorists in Northern Ireland last year, and many of the 34 that have been perpetrated since the beginning of this year. It will also recall the bomb attacks on commercial and domestic property, such as Belvoir Park, Bangor and more recently Belfast, Portadown, Magherafelt and Newry. It will recall. too, the attacks on security force bases. There have been, for example, three mortar attacks on the Crossmaglen police station and patrol base this year.
  It is difficult to do justice to the steadfastness of the men and women of the RUC, and of the forces who support them. It is beyond praise, as the whole House will agree. It is well matched by the qualities of the public, including the business community, of Northern Ireland as a whole.
  We owe it to the security forces not to minimise or play down, let alone overlook, the significant successes that they have scored in the past year against the terrorists. We owe it to the general public, too. Throughout the past year, the security forces have had every support and strong, courageous leadership from my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I pay a warm and most grateful tribute to his work as a colleague over the past 14 months.
  Last year, 405 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including 101 with murder and attempted murder. This year, as at 13 June, 168 people had been charged with such offences. Important finds of firearms, ammunition, explosives and other terrorist equipment continue to be made. In addition, determined inroads have
  468
  been made upon the sources of terrorist finance, assisted by new legislation. Other considerable successes have been achieved which get scant publicity. The security forces have worked tirelessly to disrupt and prevent terrorist operations, and I will give some examples.
  Since the beginning of March, four bombs in transit containing over 300 kgs of explosives have been intercepted, resulting in several arrests. Over 6,600 kgs of fertiliser, used in the manufacture of explosives, have been recovered. A range of other weaponry has been seized and several other murderous attacks by paramilitaries on both sides have been foiled, with the capture of Republican and Loyalist gunmen en route to commit murder. Those are some of the successes.
  Both the numerical level and the equipment of the security forces are kept under careful review. So, too, is the adequacy of the criminal law by which those guilty of terrorist offences may be brought to justice and judicially punished. It is important to recall the recent words of Sir Hugh Annesley, the Chief Constable of the RUC, who said:
  "When a terrorist outrage occurs there is often a reaction suggesting that the handcuffs should be taken off the police and the army: that our hands should be untied from behind our backs. There are no restraints on the security forces, save those imposed by law and by the very nature of our democratic society. There is no political restraint stopping us from doing our duty or doing our best."
  I assure the House that the Government remain unrelenting in their commitment to the defeat of the terrorists. That is our highest priority. I find inspiring the staunchness and resilience of those who resist their cruel attacks, and our commitment to their defeat is no less implacable.
  Mr. David Winnick: There may he a degree of pessimism about how far terrorism can be defeated in the Northern Ireland context, bearing in mind how long it has been going on, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, although the terrorist campaign—I speak principally of the Provisional IRA—has been going on for nearly four times the length of the last world war, there is not the slightest evidence of the terrorists achieving their objective? Does he further agree that neither in the House nor in the country is there the slightest wish to give up the campaign against terrorism or to give in to the bombers?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I endorse every word that the hon. Gentleman said, and it cannot be said too often or too widely. There are many who recognise the truth of those words in the ranks of those who have perpetrated such crimes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and for what he consistently says in that sense.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: When does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to be in a position to respond to the proposals for changes in the law suggested by the Chief Constable?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Chief Constable has proposed certain changes in the law, some of which are well known, as representing his opinion. They call for careful and balanced consideration. It is necessary to ensure that all legal weapons are available to the security forces.
  On the other hand, it is necessary to ensure that the state of the criminal law is not such as to represent in reasonable people's minds too draconian a body of law, so

  469
  that support for the security forces is thereby lost—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter, and I do not think many people think it is a laughing matter. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not laugh often. It is a pity that he laughted then.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Regarding the Chief Constable's recommendations, is it not essential for the Secretary of State, as the representative of the Government in Northern Ireland and as an eminent legal person, to state clearly that there cannot be any circumstances in which the core of the Chief Constable's request—that is, the shifting of the onus of proof from the state to the accused—can be met? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is in the interest of the law that such a statement should be made publicly and as soon as possible to the Chief Constable?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am being tempted to deal bit by bit, as the occasion arises and on invitations of that kind, with the serious and considered representations made publicly by the Chief Constable. I must resist that temptation.
  Mr. David Trimble rose—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have given way three times on the trot. I hope that hon. Members will now permit me to continue with my speech.
  I come to the performance of the economy of Northern Ireland in the last year, and the House may take heart from that performance. It is becoming recognised that the Province has held up remarkably well under adverse worldwide economic conditions. Seasonally adjusted unemployment in May was down 1,100 on the previous month, the fifth fall recorded in the last six months. Although the total, at 104,500, or 13·9 per cent. of the work force, is still far too high, it has come a long way from the peak of 17·6 per cent. in 1986, and is significantly lower than the rate of unemployment in the Irish Republic, where it is 16·9 per cent.
  Output levels in Northern Ireland have risen by 3 to 4 per cent. in the past year, which compares favourably with the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole, of about I per cent. Further encouragement can be drawn from the results of recent surveys of the local business community, where high levels of business confidence and improving market performance are reported. Those indicators provide evidence of the resilience of the Northern Ireland economy and of those who create wealth and employment in it. I am confident that its performance will continue to improve as the national recovery gathers greater momentum.
  The Government's strategy of working in partnership with business to help improve its competitiveness will reinforce the progress made last year. Exemplifying that progress, I point to the record of the Industrial Development Board. The IDB had a very successful year. Ten new projects have been attracted by way of inward investment, bringing new products and technology to Northern Ireland and offering about 2,000 jobs. The high level of demand for the IDB's export services was another encouraging feature. Export orders worth £120 million were reported by companies using the IDB's export marketing services.
  I report also the continuing development of a number of joint initiatives between the IDB and its counterpart in
  470
  the Republic, the Irish Trade Board. Their purpose has been to promote the increased use of source materials obtained from within the island of Ireland and the joint marketing of Irish products overseas.
  A good example of that was the successful exhibition mounted by the Irish Trade Board and the IDB in Chicago earlier this month, in which 25 Northern Ireland companies participated. I find that the best ambassadors for Northern Ireland as a base for investment from overseas are those who have already been encourged by the IDB and others to take the plunge. Once they have done that, they are the best ambassadors to those who are hesitating about whether to do the same, and they say, "Send them to us. We will tell them about it." I pay great tribute to the IDB.
  There have also been impressive achievements on the small business front, for which the local enterprise development unit—LEDU—is responsible. Those have included a record number of new business start-ups, a 4 per cent. net rise in employment among LEDU's companies, representing about 1,000 jobs, and a record number of LEDU companies expanding and transferring to the IDB. A good contribution continues to be made by the Training and Employment Agency to the overall economic strategy to increase company competitiveness.
  Similarly, in its first year of operation, the industrial research and technology unit has successfully delivered almost £20 million of European Community support for Northern Ireland made available under the Stride, Prisma and Framework programmes. That has significantly strengthened the region's technological infrastructure. It has improved those quality testing services that are vital for industrial exports, and it has stimulated commercial networking between Northern Ireland companies and academic institutions and their European Community counterparts.
  Tourism is an important topic. The highest ever number of visitors was achieved in 1992, the fourth successive record-breaking year, when almost 1·3 million visitors came to Northern Ireland. Individually, just as is the case with corporate visitors, their overriding impression of surprise is how normal the place is. They expect often to step off the aeroplane into a kind of Clint Eastwood scenario. They are astonished by how normal life is in Northern Ireland and by how unusually attractive it is in many respects.
  The Government's continued commitment to encouraging the growth of tourism is demonstrated by the increase in resources made available to the Northern Ireland tourist board this year—£12 million in total, which is almost £5 million more than only two years ago.
  In addition to our support for the development of a desirable tourism infrastructure, the European regional development fund, influenced by the tourist board, has provided over £35 million in the period 1990 to 1993, and that in turn generated investments worth £51 million. I am an admirer of NITB, especially of its television advertisements, and I am one of a growing number.
  I report with some pride the completion of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Electricity plc, the transmission, distribution and supply business, was successfully floated on the stock exchange on Monday 21 June. The sale of the Province's four power stations to three independent

  471
  private generating companies was accomplished in early 1992. A total sum of £700 million has been realised for the public purse.
  One of the Government's main aims in privatising NIE was to broaden and deepen share ownership. In the event, in common with previous privatisations, the flotation of NIE proved very popular. Two thirds of the shares have been taken up by private investors. I was particularly pleased that so many Northern Ireland people and employees of NIE decided to invest in the company. Over 40 per cent. of the shares available to the general public have been allocated to Northern Ireland citizens, some 140,000 of them. Just as pleasing is the fact that almost 50 per cent. of NIE employees applied for and received shares, and therefore gained a direct stake in their company and its future development. That is a demonstration of their confidence not only in the company but in the future of Northern Ireland. All that is a very satisfactory outcome in relation to our original objective. Its success is a great tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and to his official and professional advisers.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Secretary of State has made great play of the benefits that the privatisation of electricity has provided for the investors, but he has not referred to the consumer. It is forecast that in the near future electricity prices in Northern Ireland will rise by 15 per cent. over the rate of inflation on a base that is already in excess of the rest of the United Kingdom. How does he justify that when energy costs for industry are so high and the ordinary consumer will have to pay a high price for electricity in addition to the VAT to be imposed next year of 8 per cent., and subsequently 17·5 per cent?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows that up to 70 per cent. of electricity generated by NIE is produced by plant that uses oil. If the value of the pound comes down, the price of oil goes up. That is the principal reason for the increases in electricity to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. I am glad that I have been able to ensure that there will be no rise in excess of single figures—that is 9 per cent.—this year and that the transitional arrangements shall extend across the range of industrial users, and there are 4,000 of them.
  I am sure that the consumers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will have benefited—I am sure that they will say that it is a good thing—from the special incentives for buying the shares. There are advantages for them.
  For consumers there are wider benefits yet resulting from the privatisation. The industry has been restructured in the interests of promoting competition both in generation and supply. The planned development of the pipeline, and an electricity interconnector with Great Britain, promise, in time, improved fuel diversity and increased competition. They are attracting some £125 million of European Community support. The establishment of an office of electricity regulation, staffed by professionals and entirely independent, has further strengthened consumer rights in relation to electricity supply.
  I believe that the House will welcome these indicators of increased economic activity. I have every confidence that,
  472
  as the national economic recovery continues to take hold, Northern Ireland is well placed to take advantage of growth opportunities, and that it will seize that advantage.
  Nothing could be less welcome than this to those who have an interest in fostering instability. They hate to see more jobs and do their best to destroy them. Along with constitutional politicians of every party, the Government are in the business of encouraging their creation, preservation and all the resulting blessings of productive lives. So, as in previous years, we have gone on tackling adverse conditions in those areas characterised by disproportionate disadvantage and inequality in Northern Ireland. The "Making Belfast work" initiative continues to be at the heart of that campaign. This year a further £24 million has been made available for it and put to good use. That will take the total allocation to date to over £124 million. Those funds are additional to the extensive resources which Departments continue to put into these areas through their normal mainline programmes. They have been put to good use. The areas concerned are by no means confined to Catholic areas.
  Similarly we have gone on giving high priority to the "Targeting social need" initiative. TSN is the third public expenditure priority in Northern Ireland, coming next only to our commitment to law and order and to strengthening the economy.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the Republic for the number of Bosnian refugees that it has accepted? Bearing in mind his remarks about the normality of everyday life in Northern Ireland, and the number of visitors to the Province, is he ready to accept a number of refugees from Bosnia into Northern Ireland so that they may enjoy the normal life and the care which I am sure they would receive from both communities?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am afraid that I am not familiar with the Republic's record. However, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will operate the same immigration and asylum laws and regulations as the rest of the United Kingdom. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if refugees were to be received there they would he met with the greatest care and kindness.
  Through TSN, Government policies and programmes are targeted more sharply at the areas and people in greatest need. It is central to the TSN initiative that it is directed at need wherever it exists. It is not, as some have suggested, directed at one side of the community but to both Catholic and Protestant communities. Disproportionate need and disadvantage create the same malignities wherever they are to he found. Accordingly, wherever they are to be found, it is our purpose to eliminate them.
  Success here will bear directly upon the efforts so many have been making in the past year to encourage better community relations. I pay tribute to the innumerable individuals and organizations—sometimes tiny organizations—who at local level have committed themselves to this work. I hope and believe that they find themselves well supported by the Government. This work continues to expand, reflecting a growing desire within the community itself for peace and an end to all violence.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: How can the voluntary agencies continue to serve the sectors of real need when there have been decisive cuts? For example, in

  473
  the Eastern hoard area the cutbacks are injuring the physically handicapped in the Island centre in east Belfast; they are affecting the Derryvolgie centre for those with hearing and vision deficiencies and other places. Under the principle of care in the community we are supposed to be moving from hospital provision to community provision.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the hon. Gentleman gives me particulars of what he has described, I should be happy to deal with them. As is well known, the boards are responsible for the expenditure of their allocated sums. What the hon. Gentleman has described is by no means a consistent picture. Only last week I went to the Glenveagh special school. The hon. Gentleman was there. He heard that school described as a world leader—not just a national or European leader—and I am confident that that is right. I was delighted by the scale of the premises and the proper abundance of equipment available for those who are perhaps in most need. That needs to be recognised. I pay tribute to those who have worked in that sector.
  Despite the continuing violence in Northern Ireland, there is clear evidence that positive changes are taking place in the relationships between the two main traditions. Recent British social attitudes surveys have indicated that people are much more inclined than formerly to support programmes aimed at improving community relations, and that these are achieving some success. Over the past four years we have devoted around £20 million to this kind of programme alone.
  Sir James Kilfedder: Will the Secretary of State comment on the possibility of renewing talks on political progress? Has he made any decision about what form those talks should take, and does he intend to issue guidelines or make Government proposals on areas where no agreement has been reached in recent talks?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to come to that in a moment or two. I have a slot reserved with which I intend to finish.
  I turn finally, I note, to developments on the political front.[Laughter.] In the preceding weeks before my addressing the House last year, there had been intensive discussions between the British Government and the four main Northern Ireland parties on what has come to be known as strand 1. We were discussing the relationships between the people of Northern Ireland, including the relationships between any new institutions and the Westminster Parliament.
  Subsequently, on 6 July last year, the Irish Government joined the discussions, with the consent of all the participants. Thus enlarged, the participants moved on to consider issues in strand 2: relationships among the peole of Ireland. On 28 July, the two Governments held the opening meeting on the third strand, concerning future relationships between them.
  Those talks continued until the summer holiday, resumed in the autumn and closed on 10 November. I told the House the following day that we had not as yet succeeded in our ambitious task of securing an overall settlement—
  "a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland, and between the peoples of these islands."—[Official Report, 11 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 877.]
  I will not reiterate my account to the House at that time. It is enough to say that I was sure that that delicate and arduous process was by no means without significant
  474
  achievements to its credit. It was clear that the talks witnessed a substantive and detailed engagement between responsible and representative political leaders on issues of the utmost importance. It was a long, candid but generally harmonious process.
  A lot was done to identify what turned out to be common ground between the participants, to enlarge that common ground and to increase the respective understanding of others' positions and their respect for those positions.
  Although the talks came to a close, the independent chairman, Sir Ninian Stephen, expressed the view that their objectives remained valid and achievable. The two Governments also agreed that further dialogue was necessary and desirable. The four Northern Ireland parties agreed and undertook to
  "enter into informal consultations with a view to seeking a way forward".
  That is the current state of events. I believe that it is an important phase. It is in a different format from much that went on last year, although it is fair to say that some of the talks, towards the end, took place in a similar format, and very constructive they were. We should perhaps enlarge the areas in which we take counsel, because there is one thing of which I am certain: the people of Northern Ireland, right across the spectrum, expect politicians to talk.
  I remain keen to assist the reopening of dialogue to establish how we might build on the advances of the past two years; perhaps I weary some people in my repeated assertions of that. At Downing street on 16 June, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach reaffirmed the desire of the two Governments for further talks. As I said, I have been in contact with the four main Northern Ireland parties.
  There are issues that require further and private consideration between us, but my overall aim remains unchanged—to go on developing the common ground and working towards the kind of agreed settlement by which alone a less antagonistic way of living in a divided community may be achieved. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland hope for and expect no less.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: We are debating the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order. How interim is interim? Nineteen years is a long time to be described as "interim". When does the Secretary of State envisage a new constitutional settlement being reached, embracing the island of Ireland and a new relationship between the island of Ireland and Great Britain?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have much sympathy with the frustration that is implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question. Nineteen years is a very long time—too long. I cannot give him the answer. That lies principally with the people of Northern Ireland, but it is our duty to give what help we can.
  If we can achieve that accommodation, part of which the hon. Gentleman described in his last few words, it will hasten the day, to which I ardently look forward, when conditions in Northern Ireland are such that direct rule can be brought to an end. It is bad for Northern Ireland that opportunities for democratically sustained political responsibility are so limited. I want to see them greatly enlarged and my own immediate responsibilities accordingly diminished. There is, in my experience, a very

  475
  strong desire across the community to achieve through political discussions a widely agreed foundation for such a reform, and not only for that reason either.
  Any such reform, in order to survive, would have to be widely agreed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I, accordingly, will continue to help in this by all means that seem likely to be fruitful. The potential prize is too great by far to make it permissible to be discouraged, let alone deterred. Regrettably, however, a lot more progress must yet be made before direct rule will no longer be needed in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
  In the meantime—in the interim—I submit that direct rule must continue. As long as it does, we shall go on doing our best, with the invaluable help of dedicated officials here and in Northern Ireland, to provide good and, we hope, progressively better government for all the people of Northern Ireland. In that spirit, I commend the order to the House.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: At the outset, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I disagreed with many of his policies and with some of his judgments on Northern Ireland, but he has always been dedicated to Northern Ireland, which is perhaps not the most popular issue in the House, and I know that on becoming a Northern Ireland Minister he felt that he had fulfilled his ambition to serve in Northern Ireland. I therefore regret the circumstances which brought about his decision to resign. I also pay tribute to the work that he did before becoming a Minister and to his dedication to Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland through his work for the inter-parliamentary tier, of which he has been a dedicated and keen supporter.
  Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as someone who has repeatedly called for the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) to resign—and I am pleased that he has done so—I have made it clear that, although I am sure that I would have been strongly opposed to his ministerial work in any other Department, I felt that he was doing a good job at the Northern Ireland Office, as he had done in his other work on Northern Ireland? I therefore share my hon. Friend's sentiments, although I believe that in all the circumstances it was right for the hon. Gentleman to resign and that if he had not done so he should have been sacked.
  Mr. McNamara: In the 17th century, a Northern Ireland Minister ended up on the block and said, "Put not your trust in princes". On this occasion, it must be "Put not your trust in Majors". Although I would not go overboard in support of the policies pursued by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, I pay tribute to his dedication to Northern Ireland, to which many more hon. Members should pay attention.
  I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the work of the security forces in Northern Ireland in impartially upholding the rule of law. We should recognise that they have a difficult task to carry out in very trying circumstances. The Secretary of State paid tribute to the civil servants who have been involved in the period of direct rule and to the many people of the voluntary
  476
  organisations in Northern Ireland who play an invaluable role through the services that they give to all sections of the community.
  Each year, we begin this debate with a ritualistic incantation deploring the continuing need for direct rule and expressing the sincere desire that this will be the last year that the renewal order is debated by the House. The Labour party continues to adhere to such sentiments, but mere recitation of a desire to achieve settlement is not sufficient. The Labour party has consistently supported the talks process. However, we recognise that the prospects of restarting the talks in the immediate future are not good. The aftermath of the local government election results has seen further entrenchment of positions, and the role of the Secretary of State and the Government leaves much to be desired.
  The Democratic Unionist party has reiterated its preconditions for a return to the negotiating table. These include an end to the Hume-Adams talks and repeal of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. What the Democratic Unionist party fails to recognise is that the Irish Government can amend the Irish constitution only after a referendum of the citizens of the Republic. It is hard to imagine that Irish citizens would accept amendments to their constitution except as part of an overall settlement and, in particular, unless there were widespread support among Northern nationalists for such changes. The Ulster Unionist party now appears to be seeking to unravel the agreed structure and principles upon which the talks process has been based in the past. Such a development, I believe, would be short sighted and would represent a step backward.
  What is more important is that we still have no clear idea about what the Secretary of State's proposals will be. We have had reassurances—far from convincing—that there will be no move away from the three-strand structure and the principle that nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed. However, the Secretary of State's speech in Liverpool appeared to indicate that he would be in favour of an internal settlement with limited North-South institutions. There can, however, be no settlement that does not recognise the three relevant interlocking relationships, to which the Secretary of State paid attention today: the relationship between the two communities in Northern Ireland. the relationship between the North and the South of Ireland, and the relationship between Britain and Ireland. To ignore any one of these relationships, or to downplay one at the expense of another, would represent a failure to recognise—indeed, to understand—the underlying causes of the conflict.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the importance of the interlocking relationships between what are, essentially, the three strands of the former talks process, why was he so much in favour of proceeding with the Anglo-Irish agreement, which failed to deal with all those relationships at the same time and marginalised the Unionist community?
  Mr. McNamara: For the very reason that these talks, as I understand them, seek on behalf of the Unionist and Nationalist parties to replace the Anglo-Irish agreement

  477
  with something greater, more permanent and more acceptable to all the people involved. I understand that to be the basis upon which the talks have taken place.
  The 1991 census returns clearly demonstrate the widening gulf between the communities in Northern Ireland. Approximately half the population live in areas that are more than 90 per cent. Protestant or more than 90 per cent. Catholic. Only 7 per cent. live in areas with roughly equal proportions of both religions. Even in wards that appear to be mixed, the two communities are often separated by so-called peace lines. This segregation is a reflection of the polarisation of the two communities and serves only to reinforce prejudices and the communal divide. The new census evidence is a dramatic demonstration of the failure of direct rule. Direct rule has failed to foster links, understanding and trust between the two communities.
  The level of violence remains depressingly high, although we always welcome the successes of the security forces, and a sense of alienation from the political process is still tangible. The status quo has hopelessly failed the peoples of Ireland. It has failed to tackle the underlying causes of the present conflict. Direct rule has simply exacerbated the tensions and heightened the sense of desperation and alienation felt by the minority population and, increasingly, by members of the majority population. Not a great deal has been done to alleviate the siege mentality of many in the Unionist community. Direct rule in no way recognises that Ireland is the site not just of one minority community but of two, and not just of one majority community but of two—first, the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland, and the Protestant minority in the island of Ireland; secondly, the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, and the Catholic majority in the island of Ireland.
  In addition, the census shows that the percentage of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland has significantly increased, standing now at approximately 43 per cent. A majority in favour of a united Ireland is therefore no longer a distant dream, but a distinct possibility. Whether or not one believes that there will be a Catholic majority in 10, 20 or even 30 years' time, the fact that it is now a possibility makes the need for a just and equitable settlement all the more urgent and makes all the more pressing the need to create durable and acceptable institutions that will encompass and cushion such a demographic and possibly constitutional change.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument very closely. Is he suggesting that every person listed in the census as a Roman Catholic wants a united Ireland? Should not his views take account of what a Roman Catholic priest said recently in Dungannon—that a large number of Roman Catholics want to stay in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. McNamara: I accept that that may well be the case. Equally, quite a number of Protestants would be quite happy to be in a united Ireland. But the possibility of more than 50 per cent. of the population wanting to vote in that way cannot be denied. Even if what the hon. Gentleman has said about the voting intentions of Catholics is correct, that does not remove the need to have in Northern Ireland institutions that are acceptable to both communities, recognise the traditions and cultures of both and treat them with equality. If there were a change in the
  478
  constitutional position, such institutions would cushion and encompass it. Whatever the circumstances, the argument stands.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned census percentages. Is he aware that, in the case of Protestants, only members of the main churches were counted? People belonging to, say, the Free Presbyterian and Baptist churches were not included. That will have made a considerable difference to the figures.
  Mr. McNamara: I do not think that that is the case. However, if we are to bandy statistics about, we should do so elsewhere to avoid taking up a considerable amount of time in the Chamber. The perceived proportions of 57 per cent. Protestant and 43 per cent. Catholic are generally accepted as being the result of the census. That is the way it is.
  It would be no more desirable to have a discontented Unionist minority in a united Republic of Ireland than it is now to have a discontented nationalist minority in Northern Ireland. A way forward must be found which recognises these realities and seeks to create certainty and institutions for stability. Safeguards must be put in place to protect the rights and cultures of all traditions in the island of Ireland. Direct rule has predictably failed on all those counts, despite the good will of the House of Commons and of successive Governments.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNamara: As a result of Madam Speaker's decision to grant an emergency debate, we have less than two hours in which to conclude this one. At least six hon. Members, including representatives of five other parties, want to take part. I should be happy to continue to give way were it not for the fact that it would be at the expense of other people. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make his point, well and good, but he is certainly the last person to whom I shall give way.
  Mr. Thurnham: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not heard him welcome the successful privatisation of the electricity undertaking in Northern Ireland. Is that not an example of how to give the people of Northern Ireland a stake in their economy? It is an example of the Government's enterprise policies in Northern Ireland, of which I have had personal experience. It is surely through the prosperity of such enterprises that the people of Northern Ireland can look forward to the happy and successful future that they so richly deserve, rather than the terrorism to which they have been subjected.
  Mr. McNamara: It would have been wiser not to give way. The hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully to the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who pointed out the dangerous effects of the great increase in electricity prices on the standard of living of the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State mentioned the number of people who had taken up shares and he used the statement to answer my hon. Friend, but the hon. Gentleman should know that for every person in my hon. Friend's constituency who took up shares nine did not and they will bear the brunt of the increase in prices caused by the Government's ideology and dogma in these matters.

  479
  Any solution to the Northern Ireland conflict must take into account the interrelated causes of the conflict. The first is the deep-seated distrust which has developed between the two communities and which is enforced by deeply entrenched religious and cultural differences. The second cause is the competing national aspirations of the peoples of Northern Ireland. Majorities in both communities sincerely believe that, for principled and historic reasons, they should belong to different nation states, and those beliefs are reflected in the claims of their respective states to sovereignty over the region.
  The third is the inequality—cultural and economic—between the two communities in Northern Ireland, which still persists and breeds understandable resentment and alienation. The fourth is the effect of decades of political violence and repression, and the bitterness and hatred that they have engendered. The fifth is the failure of the security forces and the judicial system to secure legitimacy in the eyes of a large section of the population.
  As I suggested in the recent emergency powers debate, the Government should investigate the possibility of developing a new system of policing which would take account of the fact that Northern Ireland is a divided community. Ninety two per cent. of the regular constabulary and 94 per cent. of the full-time reserve are drawn from one section of the community, while almost 100 per cent. of those in the Royal Irish Regiment recruited locally for service in Northern Ireland are from the Unionist community. In addition, 93 per cent. of those working in the prison service are from the Unionist community. They are the facts which must be tackled. It is only through a new and imaginative approach and by working to end the disparities in representation that we shall secure widespread acceptance for the forces of law and order.
  Any solution to the Northern Ireland conflict must also take into account the fact that Northern Ireland is the site of contested sovereignty claims by two nation states. Under section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, as modified by the Ireland Act 1948 and the Northern Ireland Constitution Acts, the United Kingdom claims unqualified sovereignty over Northern Ireland, while under articles 2 and 3 of its constitution the Republic of Ireland claims Northern Ireland as part of its national territory. Those competing claims must be recognised and resolved because they reflect the national aspirations of two sections of the community in Northern Ireland.
  Northern Ireland is the only region within the United Kingdom that the Government formally state—in an international treaty—that they would allow to secede, possibly even "with pleasure", if the majority so wished. In November 1990, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), declared:
  "The British Government has no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland".
  In November 1992, the present Secretary of State went still further, asserting that the
  "British Government is not guided by any blue print or master plan leading to some pre-selected outcome of our choice".
  Those statements were positive steps forward, but we are worried that recent statements by the Secretary of State appear to contradict the policy of declared neutrality.
  480
  The Secretary of State still claims that the Government have set no agenda of their own, but in his Liverpool speech he ruled out the possibility of a united Ireland for the foreseeable future and the possibility of simple majority rule. He firmly ruled out joint authority. He also minimised the role of the Republic in the talks process and in the future of Northern Ireland.
  In his speech to the Northern Ireland Conservative area council, the Secretary of State fervently supported the electoral integration of Northern Ireland, declaring:
  "We want to see elected across Northern Ireland as many Conservatives supporting our policies as possible".
  He also looked forward to a time when a Conservative Secretary of State could be elected from Northern Ireland. I think that Mr. Lawrence Kennedy has some time to wait.
  In his speech to the Hazel Grove Conservative association, the Secretary of State asserted that Northern Ireland
  "is part of our own country, no less than Scotland, Wales or England".
  He went on to argue that that gave the Conservatives "a clear directional signal" as to their "purpose". If that is the basis of Conservative policy in Northern Ireland, it is reasonable for the House to deduce that the Secretary of State's "direction and focus" will lead the talks towards an internal settlement with extremely limited North-South institutions. By no definition is that a neutral agenda.
  The Secretary of State has decided to bring forward solely British proposals, despite the fact that the Irish Government are co-sponsors of the talks, which has left the Irish Government with no alternative but to draw up their own proposals. That difference between the co-sponsors of the talks has occurred at the very time when the two Governments need to be seen to be working together as closely as possible in order to resuscitate the talks process.
  The Labour party would prefer the parties of the island of Ireland to determine their own future by themselves resolving the differences between the two communities. Ideally, the parties in Ireland should be able to negotiate a settlement, without any external interference, which would gain widespread acceptance throughout the island of Ireland. However, the talks process seems to be in abeyance for the foreseeable future. That is the unfortunate fact.
  No one would welcome more than the British Labour party an announcement by the Secretary of State that the talks are to start immediately on the original basis—
  Mr. Mallon: If the talks are to resume on the previous basis, it would surely be on a joint invitation from the two Governments who sponsor the talks.
  Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friends will have noted that I made that point obliquely when talking about the British Government's proposals.
  No one would welcome more than the British Labour party an announcement from the Secretary of State that the talks are to start immediately on the original basis. As that is unlikely to happen, however, it is for the British and Irish Governments, working within the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to recognise the responsibility that they share. It is time for both Governments to reinvigorate and deepen their co-operation within that agreement.
  The two Governments should seek to make whatever progress is possible and seek ways to share responsibility and ensure that the needs of the peoples of Northern

  481
  Ireland for security, equality and justice can be met. It is imperative that a lasting and peaceful solution is found which will recognise the integrity and aspirations of both traditions within the island of Ireland and which will establish stable, legitimate and democratic institutions.
  If the parties are not able to talk together, in renewing this order for direct rule there is an increasing responsibility on both Governments—the Government of the Republic and of the United Kingdom—to resolve their differences and to establish new institutions which will win the respect of the peoples of Northern Ireland and of the peoples of the whole of the island of Ireland.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shudder to think of the nightmare in which we would be embroiled if the Labour party formed the Government of the day and if what we have just heard were the Government's policy, but I shall be ultra-selective in my remarks, for the sake of brevity.
  If our deliberations end in a Division—I am not entirely sure whether that will be the case—I shall support the extension order, but I shall do so with regret and misgivings. I shall support it because, in the prevailing circumstances. I believe that it is the only responsible course of action. There is no practical alternative on the agenda. I should support the order with regret, however, because I increasingly feel that we should not be in this position, and that the sooner direct rule ends the better.
  Tonight, there is nothing whatever to celebrate. If I calculate correctly, this is the 18th time that an extension order has been laid before the House. The "interim period" has lasted for 19 years. Stormont was prorogued and direct rule introduced 22 years ago. Meanwhile, the power-sharing executive, the constitutional convention and the rolling devolution Assembly have come and gone, and achieved nothing.
  Those initiatives were certainly well intentioned—
  Sir James Kilfedder: My hon. Friend says that the last Northern Ireland Assembly achieved nothing. That was not the impression given to me or to other members who served in it. I have heard Members of the House and Members of another place say that they greatly appreciated the hard work that was done, which was manifested in the reports that emanated from the assembly. If the Government had not embarked on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but had maintained their support for the Northern Ireland Assembly, we should not now be in the present difficult position.
  Mr. Hunter: I accept that correction. I said that, for the sake of brevity, I was accelerating my argument. The point that I was making, albeit too briefly and indistinctly, was that the lack of continuity has meant that nothing permanent has been achieved. Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction.
  Hanging in the air is the prospect of renewed inter-party talks—the initiative started by the previous Secretary of State and continued by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State.
  Direct rule is unhealthy. The most that can be said for it is that there can be circumstances in which it is the lesser of evils. Nevertheless, it is profoundly unsatisfactory that direct rule has lasted so long, and profoundly disturbing that attempts to establish alternative structures have had
  482
  no lasting effect. The fundamental weakness of direct rule, as the Secretary of State has already said, is that it denies locally elected politicians the responsibility of deciding policies for Northern Ireland. For that reason above all others, I believe that it is vital that inter-party talks are not merely resumed but brought to a positive conclusion.
  Some of the omens for the inter-party talks may not be very promising. I regret that the Social Democratic and Labour party has not convinced many observers of the genuineness and sincerity of its commitment to the search for an agreement. I also regret the President of the Republic's ill-advised recent visit to Belfast. It has reawakened old suspicions. It was a backward step which has undermined her position as a builder of bridges. Despite welcome improvements, the Irish Government can still demonstrate their good faith by delivering more in the fight against terrorism, and by further clearing the air on articles 2 and 3.
  I remain convinced that the three-strand approach is correct, but the greatest emphasis should fall on strand 1, the development of relationships within Northern Ireland, including relationships between any new institutions of government there and the Westminster Parliament. Conversely, least emphasis should he placed on strand 2. I greatly fear that there will be a groundswell of disillusionment and frustration if the political parties do not resume talks and cannot implement an agreement, at least on strand 1.
  The process cannot continue indefinitely. My personal perception is that the participants in future inter-party talks have one last chance to put their house in order. If the talks do not start, or if they fail to reach a conclusion, the Government should take a different course of action.
  The Westminster Government should then address the task of establishing in Northern Ireland structures and institutions of local government acceptable to the majority of people. In those circumstances, the Government will have to decide between imposing full legislative devolution in the form most acceptable to the majority, and a policy of integration, which would mean governing Ulster as exactly as possible in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that the participants have one last chance before one of those courses of action is taken.
  Incidentally, the time has come for the creation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. The case is overwhelming, and the absence of such a Committee is unacceptable.
  I hope that this will be the last time that we have to extend the provisions. Direct rule is unhealthy. It is to be hoped that the inter-party talks will reach a successful conclusion, but if they fail we must take either the course of imposed devolution or the course of integration.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I feel bound to remind the House that, when we embarked on this charade at the same time last year, I said that I did not intend to speak in the debate, on the ground that my commitment to the talks, or the summit, inhibited me somewhat, lest I should inadvertently breach the confidentiality that I considered essential for any possible success in the talks. Unfortunately, it was not long before that confidentiality was breached. Furthermore, the talks were terminated by the decision of the two Governments in November.

  483
  The House should be clear about what we are being asked to do in any such initiative, summit or high-wire act—this is relevant to the speech by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). In the first place, the requirement is to find a formula or a structure of government acceptable to every party, with a place therein for every party; but that is only the beginning.
  There would have to be continuing adherence to the structure thereafter. If one party withdrew its support, the structure—not the coalition, but the structure—would collapse. In countries abroad that are cursed with proportional representation, when a coalition is brought down by the desertion of a minor party, a new accommodation is cobbled together, and the structure remains. However, the Northern Ireland Office specification, time-honoured by 20 years of experimentation, ensures that, in that event, the structure of government itself collapses utterly.
  The consequences were spelt out with brutal clarity by a former Secretary of State, Lord Prior, in 1982, when he received a deputation from my party, led by the then President, the late Sir George Clark. I remember Sir George asking the Secretary of State the simple question, "In the event of an all-party coalition being established, what would happen if, for example, the SDLP withdrew?" With disarming frankness, Lord Prior replied, "Oh, that's simple. I would then dismiss the remaining native Ministers and claw power back to myself."
  Our SDLP colleagues, who are sitting on the Bench in front of me, will not mind if I say that Lord Prior made the position clear when he made a broadcast towards the end of the election campaign for his rolling devolution Assembly. In fact, it was a kind of election broadcast, although admittedly Lord Prior did not field any candidates, so it was a tactical exercise without troops.
  He assured the SDLP and its electors that, if it boycotted the assembly, as—for reasons that I entirely understand, incidentally—it had suggested it would, he would withhold powers from the three parties that took their seats. At a later stage, it was made clear that any of those three parties could be dispensed with; only the SDLP was indispensable. I am sure that that makes the SDLP feel proud, and I can understand that.
  All that happened in 1982. Since then, a more disruptive influence has entered the frame in the shape of the insistance of the Irish Government on something approaching joint authority over Northern Ireland. Such an idea is repugnant not only to the Unionists but to that category mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and those with whom he had exchanges—that element that I call the greater number. I am referring to the Protestants and Roman Catholics, the greater number of all faiths and none, who simply want to remain in the greater unit of the United Kingdom in which the protection of rights and freedoms are taken for granted.
  Incidentally, those rights and freedoms are taken for granted by millions of people of Irish descent who are scattered through the United Kingdom. They participate in electing members to represent them in this Parliament, which has evolved over 700 years into a system for the protection of minorities unequalled in the world. The 17 of
  484
  us who are sent here for that purpose recognise the perceived authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to ensure that those rights are never eroded.
  What I have said is not an argument for stalemate or despair. On the contrary, I hope that it has removed the debris of failed initiatives, so that we can make a positive start on restoring accountable democracy, if necessary by easy and modest instalments.
  I was greatly encouraged by a passage in the speech of the Secretary of State on 22 June at Coleraine. He said:
  "The Secretary of State praised Coleraine councillors, and others throughout the Province, who gave of their time to serve local government and who are willing to work together to improve standards of life in the community.
  Sir Patrick said he wanted to see wider responsibilities conferred on local councillors, and added: am sure that even more people of high quality will come forward to serve as councillors if they have more opportunities to get their teeth into issues which are of real concern to the community.""
  I fully support those words—they are in line with everything I said during the election campaign in May. The 17 of us can, without any difficulty, help the Secretary of State to identify non-controversial powers and some real scope.
  I shall take the liberty of quoting a passage of my television election campaign in which I, unlike Lord Prior, had some troops:
  "My Ulster Unionist candidates are offering you the opportunity to insist on the restoration of accountable democracy to all the citizens of Northern Ireland. As a community we can no longer tolerate the overlapping layers of remote authorities which waste our money, time and resources.
  This is no sectarian issue, for there are neither Orange nor Green roads—only good or bad roads—and the had can be mended more efficiently by District Councils. One can think of many more examples."
  Hon. Members will remember that, when the Secretary of State announced the termination of the talks in November 1992, I said that I intended to consult any people who wished to talk to me—that is, anyone who accepted the constitutional position and was prepared to act in a democratic way. My aim was endorsed by the 468 delegates at the annual meeting of my party in March. I am happy to report to the House, as I have reported to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, that the response has been encouraging.
  A volume of support is emerging for practical steps to restore stability to Northern Ireland. What is encouraging is the willingness of organisations and influential individuals, who perhaps in the past did not play their full part in society in Northern Ireland, not to engage in party politics—that was never required of them—but to use their influence at the provincial level as well as in towns, villages and rural communities to steady nerves and make national decision-making possible.
  The Government have a role in confidence-building, mainly in taking steps to bring about real accountable democracy. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights made its contribution a few days ago by pressing Her Majesty's Government to rid Parliament of that degrading Order in Council method of governing Northern Ireland, especially on legislation of fundamental importance to the entire Northern Ireland populace.
  Like the Secretary of State, I see many encouraging signs of further movement towards practical co-operation. As he knows, that capacity has always been there. It is evident in the House when the Northern Ireland

  485
  representatives put the Great Britain parties to shame in the matter of co-operation, even on matters of bread and butter importance to the people of Great Britain.
  Implicit in the remarks of the Secretary of State was a willingness to contribute to that process, and I welcome that. While we share the hope that this farce of renewing an interim measure after two decades will not be necessary in future, we may not see it entirely disappear in the next 12 months. However, I sincerely hope that in the next 12 months we will take modest, practical and constructive steps towards that goal.
  5.46 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: Once again, we have been invited by Her Majesty's Government to support the renewal of the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993. We continue this debate, as we have done for the past 11 years since I entered the House, under the shadow of the bomb and the bullet. Several of our major town centres have been wrecked recently and we have been left with wastelands by the IRA bombers. Last night, another body lay on the highway in my Mid-Ulster constituency, the victim of an IRA court of republican justice.
  It is important that we carefully consider the system of government that we are being asked to rubber stamp tonight. It has been said by some hon. Members that the direct rule that we have endured in the past is not acceptable but that we must simply continue on that road. Others have suggested that we must continue until the Unionists are willing to surrender their Unionism.
  We have heard vintage propaganda from Her Majesty's supposedly loyal Opposition Front Bench about how to get rid of part of Her Majesty's territory. Those who know the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) are not surprised by anything he says. Indeed, we would be surprised if he had said anything else because we are used to that sort of propaganda, which would give only succour—whether intentional or not—to the enemies of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the people of Northern Ireland will have to endure the suffering because of some ill-timed statements and ill-thought-out words from Her Majesty's Opposition Front Bench.
  The draft order is not a complex document. We all have a copy of it. Indeed, 30 seconds is probably sufficient time to read it. However, the implications of that document are profound and will be deeply felt by the Northern Ireland community. Like the constituents of every other Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, my constituents have to endure a system of government that is a denial of democracy and an insult to our great British standard of democracy.
  More than 20 years ago, the people of Northern Ireland were robbed of effective government by the suspension of our Northern Ireland Parliament. In its place, we have a Northern Ireland Office that is accountable to no one in the Northern Ireland community; nor does it have the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the House ought to appreciate the frustration and, indeed, alienation felt by the majority of Ulster citizens in the face of that unrepresentative system of government. It should also appreciate the inherent dangers that lie in the path of denying democracy to the good, law-abiding people of Northern Ireland.
  486
  Not only is the present position ridiculous but it should be condemned. The people of the Province have no say over decisions that affect even the most elementary aspects of daily living. For example, civil servants order the citizens of our part of the United Kingdom as to where to build, how to build and what to build. The elected representatives of the people are often frowned upon as interfering busybodies who have little or no right to question such unfettered dictatorship.
  No other part of the United Kingdom would accept that intolerable and deplorable system. I warn the House that such a system undermines respect for the democratic process and for Parliament. The people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, have no effective say in the decision-making process for roads, sewerage, water, schools, health, planning and so on. As if that insult were not sufficient, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland often receive lectures from certain Members of Parliament and others from across the world—every Tom, Dick and Harry who desires to be flown in. The Unionists are lectured that we must sell our Unionist principles and betray the trust of the people who elected us before we can have restored to us a say in the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom.
  Many of that collection of what one could call political has-beens, nobodies and know-alls sold their soul out to republican propaganda. They care little about democracy or the rights of suffering people such as my constituents. Many of my constituents have suffered murder and slaughter simply because they happen to be members of Her Majesty's security forces or of a Protestant persuasion.
  Our present system of government is an indignity and it should be changed forthwith. Our Prime Minister has often expressed his intention to fight to strengthen the union between England and Scotland, but is it not time that the Government came out fighting to strengthen the union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Instead, the message that emanates from the Northern Ireland Office and from certain speeches of the Secretary of State is that the position of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom is qualified and conditional and may change. It is suggested that if the change came about, the Government would perhaps be delighted. The Government have no strategic interest in staying any longer within the Province.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows that I did not say that. He knows that that is untrue. He knows that that is a gross distortion of anything that I have said or could reasonably be supposed to have said. He does his case no good by saying that.
  Rev. William McCrea: I am delighted to give way to the Secretary of State. I refer him to the tapes of the German speech, in which he made his views known.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is precisely what I had in mind and precisely why I intervened.
  Rev. William McCrea: If the Secretary of State felt so strongly about it, he would not have mentioned that Northern Ireland costs the United Kingdom Exchequer £3 billion. He would not have thrown the cost of retaining Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom in our teeth. Nevertheless, the Government no longer have any strategic interest in staying any longer. Indeed, those are

  487
  blunt words. They are a blunt way of saying, "Your ports were useful during the war while the Irish Republic showed Germany the path to bomb your cities. Your men were valuable to die in the fields of France in defence of freedom on the world stage. But now we feel all right, Jack. We are in a different international field, so you can go off to Dublin."
  Let me make it abundantly clear to the House that the majority of Ulster citizens will not go to Dublin. If the Government at any time desire to rid themselves of Northern Ireland, the people of Northern Ireland still will not go south towards Dublin. Let it be abundantly clear that we in Northern Ireland have sacrificed too much blood to remain out of the Irish Republic. We would happily sacrifice whatever else needed to be taken from us to ensure that we did not go into the Irish Republic. So whatever Bench hon. Members sit on, and whatever lectures they give us, they will not change the view of the Unionist majority. Six will not go into 26.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. William McCrea: No. I must continue because I have limited time and I understand that the hon. Gentleman intends to speak in the debate; otherwise, I would certainly be glad to give way. No one delights more in healthy exchange and debate than me.
  During the debate last year, the House was reminded of the statement that emanated from the then Minister of State at the time of the by-election referendum on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He said:
  "It doesn't matter how you vote, it won't make any difference."
  That did not come from a Member of Parliament. It was not a misquote. It was a direct statement to the people of Northern Ireland as they were expressing their view on their position within the United Kingdom and its diminution by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That statement sums up the sort of democracy that we have endured under direct rule.
  There are a few home truths which the House needs to hear. The majority Unionist community in Ulster is sick of betrayal. The Government are on the verge of pushing the majority community too far. The truth of the situation is this: the Government have moved towards alienating the vast majority of Northern Ireland. The ballot box decides that Dublin should have no say in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland—a part of the United Kingdom. Yet Dublin has been given more say in the affairs of Northern Ireland than the elected representatives of the people.
  The Government have also decided that all political development in Northern Ireland will be halted until Unionists agree to some interference from Dublin. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the spokesman for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, seemed to envisage a different measure of that interference.
  The ballot box declares the will of the vast majority of Ulster people to be British, yet the Government seek through educational programming, economic strategy and so on to erode our Britishness and develop an Irish identity. The ballot box establishes the right of every citizen to be equal and to have equal status, yet the Government have decided that a vote for the Social Democratic and Labour party—it has been mentioned
  488
  already—or other republican party is of more value than votes cast for the Unionist parties. The ballot box demands the upholding and strengthening of democracy, yet the Government have decided that Ulster can have only what is known in Ulster as a rigged democracy, without reference to British democratic principles.
  We have to endure the Fair Employment Commission, which not only is guilty of discrimination against Protestants in its own employment but closes its eyes to blatant discrimination against the Protestant community, for example, in the Department of Health and Social Services. I say that not as one who believes that anyone should be discriminated against on the ground of religion. As the books will show, and as was confirmed by the Fair Employment Commission, the only time there was fair employment in Magherafelt district council was during the four years when I happened to be chairman, when people were employed equally. When the Social Democratic and Labour party controlled the council, it was found guilty of discriminating against Roman Catholics. That can be checked if Opposition Members do not believe it—the books shall open.
  There was unfair distribution of Government jobs. SDLP constituencies were deliberately chosen for those jobs. Londonderry in the west of the Province was chosen, but what about Omagh, Cookstown, Magherafelt and all the other places—[ Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).
  I read in a paper the other day that jobs are to be removed from Belfast, Ballymena and Bangor and are to be sent to Londonderry and Downpatrick. Jobs were robbed from Belfast, Ballymena and Bangor. Where the jobs were to be shared around, why were Omagh and other major settlements in the Province not chosen? Was deliberate discrimination practised? Were constituencies represented by parties with certain political complexions chosen to receive grants? It is unbelievable that, in order to obtain a grant for a Northern Ireland Housing Executive house, one has to state one's religion—whether Catholic or Protestant. Whenever challenges were made, we were told that the policy was designed to show how many Protestants and how many Catholics were receiving grants for their properties. Following a recently introduced law, that is now the policy of the present Administration.
  We have been left in a despicable position—Sinn Fein deliberately and defiantly support IRA murderers, but the Government give Sinn Fein the respectability of sitting in the council chambers. The elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are supposed to conduct normal council business with those representatives of murderers.
  There is unfair distribution of Government finances and Government agencies. I have received numerous letters from my constituents complaining about the imbalance of funding in Government finance programmes. Surely that cannot always happen by chance—some of the funding must be directed from specific sources. There is also a religious imbalance in Government-nominated posts. The list of acts of discrimination is endless. The failure to redress the balance will continue to alienate the Protestant and majority community, with monumental consequences.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: There was a recent decision to establish and fund the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools in Northern Ireland. Does the hon.

  489
  Gentleman agree that the majority community perceived that decision as if, for the first time, one section of the community in Northern Ireland were having special treatment and special support at the expense of the majority community?
  Rev. William McCrea: I have been given the statistic that in, I think, 1991–92, 73 per cent. of all funding in the education programme was directed towards maintained schools and 23 per cent. towards controlled schools, which the vast majority of people support. The figures speak for themselves.
  A few weeks ago, I was in the United States of America attempting to develop a cordial relationship with industrialists from the southern states to help my constituency. At the same time, the IRA was blasting the business centre of our town to pieces. Millions of pounds worth of damage was done, not only in Magherafelt, but in Portadown, Lurgan and Newry—I could continue with the list.
  Recently, in my constituency, the people of the Protestant community of Pomeroy came under systematic attack and intimidation. The position has not changed, and it is due only to the courage of the dwindling Protestant community in Pomeroy that the area has not been wiped clear of that community. I am talking not about a border area where the Provos have been on the march for a number of years but about a region that is the centre of the Province—a part of the United Kingdom.
  A young man in my constituency, Mr. Martin, showed the spirit of enterprise and resilience that is displayed by many of my suffering constituents, but that spirit cost him his life. He decided not to move out of Mid-Ulster. Others are being encouraged to move by the security forces as they cannot be protected. However, Mr. Martin decided to secure a better future for his family by purchasing further land essential for the development of his farming industry.
  Mr. Martin was brutally murdered because he was a Protestant farmer who was not willing to be intimidated out of his heritage by a bunch of murdering IRA thugs. That may not impress many people in the House, but on my visits to that man's home, I did not see many Members of Parliament telling the family how much they grieved for the suffering that that community has endured down the years. Mr. Martin sealed his purchase with his youthful blood, and his sacrifice must not be in vain. Ulster needs a Government with the will to protect its citizens, irrespective of worldwide propaganda and public opinion. The Martin family face intolerable intimidation and death threats; our Government must effectively defend the innocent and destroy the evil.
  As the local government elections approach, much play has been made in that community and throughout the Province of the fact that a large section of the community does not support the terrorists and their political mouthpiece, Sinn Fein. The election results proved that one out of two in that community voted for the gunmen. In the rest of my constituency, the gunmen's vote increased in support. That is how the people were repaid after all the pandering to terrorists and others of the republican community.
  Suggestions have been made in the House today that the Irish Government should be inviting us to the table. The Irish Government never asked Unionists to the talks. The first strand of the talks had nothing to do with the Irish Government; they were internal talks for the internal
  490
  parties of the United Kingdom. I say to the SDLP that, during the talks, it was made clear that there was no intention of having an internal settlement which was to be left on the sidelines to be used to exert pressure to encourage Unionists to sell out their Unionism. We will not sell out our Unionism for anyone. Our people have suffered and endured. Whether or not the House likes to hear it, I tell hon. Members that I shall not come to the House to put my hand to anything that sells out the future of my people.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I shall first refer to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I take no pleasure in anyone's political problems. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman since 1973, and I wish him well and thank him for his interest in Northern Ireland. We seldom, if ever, agreed and we had many bruising encounters and fundamental disagreements, but I could never accuse him of indifference. I should like to put on record that I wish him well.
  There is almost something pathetic about today's debate which, in many ways, ignores one of the fundamental realities. We are almost trying to grovel for a share of a cake which should be equally distributed. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) spoke about this town getting that and another town riot getting it, and about the way in which problems were divided up into Catholic or Protestant ones. Such comments do not help the political process.
  I shall concentrate on two main points as I know that there is a time constraint. Normally in such debates, we have a perennial whipping boy—the political parties of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said in his opening statement that the responsibility lies principally with the people of Northern Ireland, but it does not. The problem we have in the north of Ireland was not created by the people of Northern Ireland; it was devised by two sovereign Governments—the British Government and the Government in the Republic of Ireland—as an artificial device to overcome the difficulties that they were facing at that time. That has left us with the problems that we have experienced for the past 72 years.
  Let us not make the Northern Ireland political parties the whipping boys in this or any other debate. The situation is the result of a governmental decision. Having created something in such an artificial way that for 72 years it has been sustained only by artificial means—through immense security input, a remarkable amount of expenditure and bending the law as it has been bent by emergency legislation—the two Governments should be asking themselves what is so fundamentally wrong that we have had no solution or settlement in 72 years.
  Is it the fault of people in the north of Ireland? Are we that bad that at times we have to endure such a patronising approach here? Let us not forget that the arrangement which created the problem was made at governmental level by two Governments. If we do not examine the fundamental artificiality and failure of that agreement, we ignore the core of the problem.
  Of course we can talk and I congratulate the Secretary of State on a rather attractive travelogue about Northern Ireland, but that is not the place where I live. His speech was absolutely excellent from a presentational point of view, but it is not the Northern Ireland I know and it did

  491
  not touch the core of the problem. Until we face the core of the problem, we will continue putting pieces of icing on the cake.
  Mr. Barry Field: There is little doubt that some people who negotiated the treaty 72 years ago believed that it was artificial and that it would change within 10 years. However, 72 years might lead one to believe that the treaty was the end of a process and not the beginning of one. That is the reality and, apparently, some people simply will not accept it.
  Mr. Mallon: If the hon. Gentleman were to refresh his memory and read the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the comments of the then monarch in relation to that Act, he would recognise that it was then seen as an ad hoc arrangement that should inexorably lead to a permanent position. Let me probe further, as one seldom has the opportunity to probe the British Government's long-term position on the viability of partition as a solution.
  What if I were to say on record:
  "I do not agree that partition can be the basis for a settlement. My hon. Friend's underlying thought is perfectly right—there are two communities on the island and they must be given rights as two communities—but if there is to be a lasting settlement, it must be within the sovereignty of one Cypriot Government."?—[Official Report, 28 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 1006.]
  Those are not the words of a Northern Ireland nationalist or republican; they are words of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House on 28 October 1992. In those words, is the Secretary of State recognising the inherent instability and artificiality of partition on a small island such as Cyprus? If he is, I believe that he is looking realistically and courageously at the way in which problems can be solved, rather than putting them under the icing on the cake.
  We say yes to good local government for its own purposes and its own good reasons, to good economic co-operation between the political parties for their own good reasons and to good community relations by all means for good reasons, but not to solve fundamental political problems. We are hearing such a patch-up today—that, if we put another blob of icing over what is underneath, everything will come together and solve the problem. I believe that it will not. It should happen as of right, because it is the right thing to do.
  I return to the fundamental point where I started and again ask the same question. Is it not the business of the two sovereign Governments who created a mutual problem to solve it? It is not enough to say that the Irish Government have no role to play. The problem is on the island of Ireland and affects them daily. It costs £1 million a day to police the border. It is a problem that is not going to go away in the normal conventional way.
  We must examine the central issue. What are the Governments doing? Where is the missionary zeal we were promised not just by the British Government but by the Irish Government? Has it been siphoned off into a new form of contemplative order, as was referred to in the debate on this subject last year? When has there been realistic debate in the Republic of Ireland about a problem which is the Republic's problem as well as ours, and which was created by an Irish Government? Why are we experiencing an almost Trappist silence from those who had remarkable missionary zeal? Have both Governments
  492
  jointly decided that a vow of silence is right and that they should retreat into their own monastic settlements? Why are they contemplating how to solve a problem that they have had 72 years to solve? I believe that the question must be asked.
  There is something fundamentally wrong with the political process if, with all the people dead, the price being paid and the instability it is causing, both Governments seem to have run to ground and are not giving it the attention that it deserves. I apply that criticism even-handedly because I believe that the responsibility lies with both Governments and not primarily with the political parties in the north of Ireland. That is one reason why so many peripheral issues start to become important.
  Next week, when the inter-parliamentary body meets, wonder of wonders, we will be giving almost half a day's consideration to the Opsahl report. The inter-parliamentary body of representatives from this Parliament and from the Irish Government has experienced the problems in the north of Ireland; lo and behold, we will be giving the Opsahl report half a day's consideration. Is that facing reality? I am tempted to quote an observation made in one of the Sunday newspapers relating to the Opsahl report, although I cannot attribute it because I forget which newspaper it was in. It was a quote from the philosopher Nietzsche: "I sowed a dragon and I reaped a flea." The problems are more fundamental than that and have to be grasped.
  One of our other recent distractions was a presidential visit. I do not know what the background to the visit was—I am not privy to that type of information. I wonder how much time during the meeting between the Prime Ministers of this country and of Ireland was spent discussing that visit, and how much was spent discussing a political resolution to our problems. I do not know and will never know. I suspect that it will be another in the litany of incidents that assume an importance that is remarkable given that the important things have not been addressed.
  We have to face up to the fundamental realities of the problem. I am not speaking about creating a situation where Unionists cannot have parity with nationalists. I am asking a question that must be answered by both Governments: what is the long-term position in relation to a solution to the problem? Unless someone ultimately has the courage to say what that long-term position is, the fundamental problems will not be faced.
  Are we to go on with the platitudes that we all utter when we are asked about the resumption of the talks? I do not think that anyone in the House believes that talks are to resume in the autumn. I am not sure that anyone in the British or Irish Governments believes it. Nobody in the political parties believes it, but one must conform and say that one believes that they will resume in the autumn. I do not think that they will, although I should like them to continue. I believe that the reason for that is that we have come to a watershed in the way in which the two sovereign Governments deal with the problem.
  The matter could perhaps best be summarised in this way: is there an opportunity to start to solve the security problems, the policing problems, the justice problems and the problems of discrimination to which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred? Is there to be a solution once and for all, or is there to be another Anglo-Irish agreement? I should perhaps remind the Unionists behind me that, when they talk about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they are

  493
  referring to the most recent agreement. We must also remember the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1921, which has not been spectacularly successful.
  We must make a distinction, because I believe that that will help the political process. Are we going for a solution to the problem? Or are we to get another cosy little arrangement that may last a while and struggle along artificially, and be propped up in every way—an arrangement whose members will be lionised by everyone of good will and which will ultimately collapse like all the other arrangements have collapsed? That is the position that the two Governments and the political parties are in.
  I hope that we all have the courage to say that we are going for a solution. It is a path that will entail dangers and major compromises for everybody and will raise serious questions of all of us in this Parliament and in the north and south of Ireland. Are we to create for ourselves another little arrangement that will be as fundamentally flawed as the other little arrangements that have fallen before? That is the nub of the problem we face. Sooner or later, the Government will have to face that problem and answer the questions. Must we continue year after year with the classic failure of all Governments—that they never do the right thing until they have exhausted every other eventuality?
  6.26 pm
  Sir James Kilfedder: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that Northern Ireland was an artificial entity. The first people ever to land on the island of Ireland came across the narrow strip of water between Scotland and what the hon. Gentleman refers to as the north of Ireland. They were the first people to live in the island of Ireland, and most historians accept that as a fact.
  I have the honour to represent a constituency which was a centre of learning long before Dublin city ever existed. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman talked about the bitterness that he seems to think has been generated from the creation of Northern Ireland more than 70 years ago. I have read a history of the ancient Irish Churches—I am not talking about King Billy or Henry VIII or anybody like that—in Norman times, about 700 years ago.
  At that time, the Irish monks wrote to the Pope to complain about the arrogance of the English monks, and to say that they did not want them in Irish monasteries. The English monks in the Irish monasteries also wrote to the Pope to complain about the barbaric Irish monks. The dispute was running long before 1920, when Northern Ireland was created.
  In North Down, we have witnessed IRA bombing atrocities, although nothing like the ethnic cleansing that has taken place in the border areas of Northern Ireland. On the last two occasions, the IRA tried to destroy the heart of Bangor in my constituency, and four brave police officers escaped death only by a miracle, although some sustained serious injuries. More recently, there was the sectarian killing of an innocent Roman Catholic man, which I utterly condemn. The loyalist paramilitaries, in committing that dastardly deed and other tit-for-tat murders, play into the hands of the IRA, which thrives on fear and hatred.
  We are fortunate in North Down. We have no peace lines dividing one religion from another. We reject sectarian hatred, and our earnest hope is for reconciliation
  494
  and political progress in Northern Ireland. Our prayers are directed to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and we hope that he will succeed in achieving political progress in the Province. That is why I support the talks, and why most people in Northern Ireland support them and hope that they succeed.
  The previous Northern Ireland Assembly, of which I was Speaker, made a valuable contribution to democracy in Northern Ireland. I mention it because one of my hon. Friends referred to it and accepted afterwards that his remarks about that Northern Ireland Assembly were wrong. It was a useful Assembly, and from 1982 to 1986 the people of Northern Ireland, through their Assembly representatives, were able to play a positive role in the affairs of the Province. For that short period, direct rule was given a human face and a local input.
  Sadly, having established the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government then embarked—in secret—on another initiative, which led to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That scuppered the Assembly, and scuppered any prospect of reaching a settlement based on an Assembly at Stormont. When I say that the initiative was embarked on in secret, I mean that the Government did not consult representatives of the majority community in any way.
  Since 1986, Northern Ireland has been governed by Order in Council. Debate on such orders is normally limited to 90 minutes, and the orders cannot be amended. That is not democracy; it is a denial of democracy. The parliamentary democracy enjoyed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom is denied to the people of Northern Ireland, at a time when the population of Ulster are suffering appalling injuries and deaths at the hands of the terrorists. The campaign of terrorism has now lasted 25 years; we need more democracy, not less.
  As I have often said before, that is why I support the call for a Select Committee to deal with Ulster's affairs, composed of all Northern Ireland Members. It could sit in Northern Ireland as well as in London; it would have the power to take evidence from expert witnesses, and to examine Ministers, civil servants and others. All the political representatives—representing most political hues in Northern Ireland—could then work together to resolve the problems that face people in Northern Ireland. Political slogans would no longer matter, or at any rate they would matter less. I believe that, in that way, a political rapprochement could be secured in Northern Ireland.
  The history of Ireland is crammed with happenings that cause offence to loyalists as well as nationalists. I am a great believer in reading history; but there is no merit in constantly raking over the past and opening old wounds. Ireland's history is not unique; we are witnessing terrible slaughter in Bosnia and other parts of the world.
  I commend the people of Ulster for the remarkable restraint that they have shown in the face of obscene slaughter, mutilations and bombings. The people of Ulster need not only political progress, but—first and foremost—the defeat of terrorism, whether it be Protestant, Catholic, republican or loyalist. I pay tribute to the courage of the security forces; I hope that the Government will now adopt a vigorous security policy.
  I am disappointed by the Dublin Government's reaction. I think that they could do far more. I believe that, if all the people in Ireland, north and south—and all the people in Northern Ireland, including politicians who regard themselves as constitutional politicians—worked

  495
  together against terrorism, we could unite the people against the evil and bring peace to Northern Ireland. With peace, we would bring hope and prosperity to our community.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: In the past half hour or so, I have learnt that another of my constituents has been murdered by terrorists. It happened this afternoon. I understand that that constituent served the community in the Ulster Defence Regiment; for that, he has been murdered—presumably by Republican terrorists, although I know no more about the circumstances.
  I think of that, and I think of what has also happened today: the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who was responsible for security in Northern Ireland, resigned this afternoon. I have heard some of the comments of hon. Members about his resignation, and about the work he did as a Minister. Hon. Members will understand that I do not feel able to echo the tributes paid to him, following yet another demonstration of the failure of the Government's security policy. Whoever succeeds him as Minister responsible for security should reflect on what happened in Lurgan this afternoon, and on the loss of yet another good man who served the community well and paid the price for doing so.
  That event casts a shadow over what I had intended to say. I shall therefore leave the bulk of it for another occasion. No doubt the news and current affairs programmes are already discussing the circumstances which led to the resignation of the Minister responsible for security in Northern Ireland, but I wonder how much discussion there will be of the terrorist murder which took place this afternoon—I suspect that there will be very little.
  Today has been very confused. The emergency debate prompted by events involving Rosyth, which will begin in 25 minutes' time, has led to the withdrawal of the debate on the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. However, listening to the Secretary of State, I sometimes wondered whether in his haste he had picked up the wrong speech as most of his speech referred to Government policy on the economy of Northern Ireland, or on aspects of the work of the Northern Ireland Departments. Such matters should be dealt with in debates on appropriation orders, not in debates on the renewal of direct rule.
  The tail end of the Secretary of State's speech referred to what are described as inter-party talks. That, too, struck me as—strictly speaking—not relevant to a debate on the extension of direct rule. Direct rule means the rule exercised by Her Majesty's Government, and the legislative authority of the House in regard to Northern Ireland. It is right and proper that the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government should rule Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. What should be observed in regard to the future of direct rule, however, is that it is a debased form of rule: we are not governed as we ought to be governed and as other parts of the kingdom are governed, but through a truncated legislative procedure—the Order in Council procedure—which is patently undemocratic.
  We are governed without proper accountability. That is what the Secretary of State was trying to cover up. He
  496
  went through the motions of rendering an account, but there is no proper accountability, and he knows it. If there were proper accountability, the Secretary of State—like every other Secretary of State—would be called to account through a Select Committee. The absence of that procedure illustrates the improper nature of direct rule. This debate should have focused on the absence of a Select Committee procedure and on the shortcomings of the Order in Council procedure that we are forced to suffer.
  If I had the time, I would have quoted from the valuable report of the Hansard Society commission on the legislative process, which expresses the hope that the Government will handle Northern Ireland problems sympathetically and, in particular, that they will return to a proper form of legislation. I also hoped to quote from the recently published and equally valuable report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which analyses the Order in Council procedure in a devastating manner and makes cogent proposals for reform—proposals that I endorse.
  I will quote one sentence from the SACHR report—or, rather, from the appendix to it. It refers to the Government arguments for not legislating properly and summarises them by saying:
  "This argument"—
  that is, the argument that the Government advance with regard to not legislating properly
  "may be interpreted as an indirect way of stating that the power to make laws for Northern Ireland is not required to be exercised either fairly, or willingly and responsibly."
  That is what the House will be saying tonight when it reviews the direct rule legislation; it will be saying that it does not consider that the Government are required to legislate fairly, or willingly and responsibly. That is what Government Front Bench Members have been saying and what the Opposition have been endorsing. It is not right, and it is getting extremely tiresome to have to sit here year after year listening to feeble attempts to justify what is unjustifiable and to divert attention from it.
  Reference to the talks and suggestions that it is somehow the responsibility of the people of Northern Ireland to put an end to direct rule is a diversion, and I have just one comment to make on it. One has to acknowledge that last year's talks, which ended unsuccessfully and inconclusively in November, had a destabilising effect on the community. Fresh talks which also end inconclusively would only worsen that destabilisation. Any responsible party representing, as we do, a significant section of opinion in Northern Ireland has to be sure that there is a reasonable prospect of success in any further talks process, whatever form it may take, before embarking upon it. It would be grossly irresponsible to undertake something that would result only in greater uncertainty and greater destabilisation of the community, because destabilisation, instability and uncertainty are the root causes of the terrorism of which we have seen another example today.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I have to thank my own Front Bench Members for allowing me to come in e this stage and forgoing their own right to reply. I will try not to bite the hand that fed me on this occasion.
  My position with regard to Northern Ireland is that we should be doing everything we can to try to establish peace and reconciliation, which involves an understanding of the

  497
  existence of different communities and the need for respect for the different traditions. At the same time, we must take as strong a stand as possible against terrorism and acts of abuse. Those positions do not seem to me to be in conflict; they are bound together, and there must not be any ambivalence on any side about objecting to acts of terrorism and abuse and organising to stand out against them.
  I have been disappointed, however, with certain aspects of the debate so far. If we cannot have talks on the future of Northern Ireland elsewhere, at least opportunities such as today's should be taken to have our own talks about what we believe should be done.
  Some of the debate that has taken place across the Floor between Northern Ireland Members has tended to reflect the difficulties in discussing the various positions. A good debate is one in which new ideas emerge and there is some sort of synthesis of the best points from the arguments on all sides. This is not always possible when the opposite sides are diametrically antagonistic.
  I am sorry that certain things were not referred to by the Front Bench spokesmen. It was not until the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke that we had any mention of the Opsahl Commission, and then it was only to condemn its findings. The commission's report should be examined seriously. It has 25 recommendations, and I for one will have great difficulty with a number of them. Nevertheless, the commission engaged in some 3,000 interviews in Northern Ireland, often with people within community groups. It had some good discussions with sixth forms, for instance.
  A whole host of views and attitudes emerge in the report which are not necessarily part of the conclusions and recommendations, but they help hon. Member; such as myself who are not from Northern Ireland to begin to gain some understanding of the situation there.
  The points about direct rule in the report are very relevant to this debate. I do not have time to quote any of them, but I refer hon. Members to page 113. A number of points have been made about the inadequacies of the procedure in the House. I would have thought that the Secretary of State would at least have recognised the existence of the Opsahl Commission.
  There are bodies of people in Northern Ireland which are not the major political parties, organisations or forces, but which work continuously for reconciliation and object very strongly to terrorism. Groups such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror are cross-community and adopt the same attitude to sectarian terror in their own communities. There is also the Peace Train organisation, and a body with which I am associated, called New Consensus, which has particular ideas about what should be done. Indeed, some of the best work is being done at community level, sometimes involving political parties, religious groups and others, and working on a cross-community basis.
  I also believe that the debate should cover—the Secretary of State mentioned it—the economic and social elements of the problems of Northern Ireland, including those connected with direct rule. In this connection, I disagree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who felt that this was irrelevant.
  However, the Secretary of State said the wrong things about economic and social development. He stressed such things as electricity privatisation, on which a unanimous position was taken across the political parties, apart from
  498
  the new Conservative party in Northern Ireland, which opposed that measure. When there is some unity in Northern Ireland on such a wide political issue, we should look very carefully at the situation. It may have been that the Government were playing a cautious role and trying to get everybody united against them in the interest of other forms of development, but I doubt whether there was that kind of subtlety. I believe that what happens is that the economic programme of the Cabinet and of the Government generally spills over on occasion to Northern Ireland, and almost runs counter to many of the other things that are being done.
  The Northern Ireland Office will point to the valuable work that it does, the amount of money that is being spent in Northern Ireland and the encouragement of different forms of activity. Then it will come up with something that is in the ideological tradition of Thatcherism and apply it to Northern Ireland, although it is felt to be quite irrelevant by the organisations within Northern Ireland.
  I feel that the appropriation debate offers a great opportunity. I hope that the timetabling of that debate will be re-examined and that it will not be just a one-and-a-half-hour affair. What opportunity do we have to discuss economic and social affairs in Northern Ireland? This is the nearest we come to a Northern Ireland budget. Because of the problems of Northern Ireland and because there is no proper local government structure, Northern Ireland Members are obliged to raise under this heading many issues that are local constituency concerns. They are matters that in another sphere would be dealt with in councils and other bodies. We cannot therefore get to grips with the economic and social issues. The political parties have not, it seems, analysed these issues and are not in a position to put forward an alternative.
  Few Members attend Northern Ireland debates, apart from Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, the Front Bench spokesmen on both sides and those who support them. Only four Conservative Back Benchers and two Labour Back Benchers who have an interest in Northern Ireland affairs are here at the moment. There are many reasons. One is that we are considering a statutory instrument that cannot be amended. The ability to table amendments is not available to us. If we could do so, we should be able to put forward our own ideas about the way forward, or ideas that we had picked up as a result of our studies and of our talks with members of the Hansard Society and others. The procedures of the House deny us the opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland matters properly.
  There is an overwhelming case for setting up a Northern Ireland Select Committee. Such a Committee could discuss properly Northern Ireland concerns. Representatives of all the political parties in Northern Ireland would be able to serve upon it and publish reports that the House could consider.
  It is a mistake that the Ulster Unionists decided not to be members of the British-Irish parliamentary group, which does valuable work. Its work would be even more valuable if a Northern Ireland Select Committee could be set up. Some members of the British-Irish parliamentary group would be keen to serve on that Committee, which might lead to a valuable exchange of ideas. The opportunity for discussion and argument is lacking at present, with the result that only individual views are put forward. Discussion and argument could lead to compromise and reconciliation and possibly to agreement.

  499
  As for privatisation in Northern Ireland, it would be interesting to know how much money was spent on advertising shares when the electricity industry was privatised, compared with the amount of money spent on the development of the political process in Northern Ireland. When I asked the Prime Minister how much money was spent on the registration of United Kingdom electors, I was given an answer for Great Britain, but I was told that support for advertising electoral registration in Northern Ireland is not provided. In 1990, £705,000 was spent on getting people from overseas to register so that they could vote in Great Britain, but there is no such expenditure in Northern Ireland, which is disturbing.
  However, that issue is only part of what is needed in a democracy. Many people believe that the franchise does not matter all that much, for there is little that they can do with their vote to influence affairs in Northern Ireland.
  6.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Michael Ancram): May I begin by thanking those hon. Members who have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I shall certainly ensure that their tributes are passed on to him. May I also pay tribute to my predecessor, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who, I know, is very much respected by all Northern Ireland Members.
  This has been a lively debate which has centred mostly on the political question. I realise that I have only a short time in which to reply to the debate. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not answer all the points that were raised.
  I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). This is the first time that I have attended one of these debates in an official capacity. His speech—I am told that this is not unusual—was strong on analysis but not very strong on answers. There were one or two inaccuracies in it that should be corrected.
  The hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of not backing the three-strand concept in the talks. My right hon. and learned Friend has always backed the three-strand concept and has made that clear on a number of recent occasions. It is right to put on record the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has strong feelings about that matter.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to proposals and made the point that the British Government have left the Irish with no alternative but to go forward with their own proposals. It is right that I should make it clear that we have been formulating our proposals, which we hope may serve to give direction to the talks when they resume. We shall present our paper to all participants at that stage. In the meantime, we want to test and refine our ideas and judgment by means of dialogue with all of them. We are trying to carry out that process at the moment, through discussions with the party leaders and the Irish Government.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) made a helpful and constructive speech. I welcome what he said. We shall wish to consider his speech
  500
  carefully. He said that the prospect of joint authority appearing over the horizon was a matter of some concern to him. I should stress that my right hon. and learned Friend is already on record as saying that the political talks will not conclude with Northern Ireland becoming subject to the joint political authority of the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. Apart from the question of practicality that such an arrangement would raise, my right hon. and learned Friend does not believe, nor do the Government, that such an outcome would be acceptable to public opinion in Northern Ireland. I want to stress that too.
  I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) with great care. Most of his speech was addressed to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, but he asked us why there was a difference in the Government's attitude towards Scotland and towards Northern Ireland. There is no difference. The only circumstances in which Northern Ireland might leave the Union would be on the basis that that was the will of the majority of the people who live there. Equally, the Prime Minister has made it clear in respect of Scotland that no nation could be held irrevocably in the Union against its will.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to what has occurred in his constituency today. I join him in his expessions of horror at that incident. He raised the question of security. The Government will not shirk their responsibility for dealing with terrorism. There is no acceptable level of violence. The Government are responsible for ensuring that the law effectively protects the rights of citizens, including the right to life. There is no compromise on that.
  The Government have made it clear that we believe that at the end of the day there has to be dialogue if we are to find a solution to the problem. Many hon. Members have made it clear today that they find this debate distasteful because we are, in effect, debating the question of renewing direct rule. I can only reiterate the hope expressed by many hon. Members today and by my right hon. and learned Friend—a hope which I am sure has been expressed by many others over the years in such debates—that it will not be much longer before an end can be put to the present temporary arrangements for handling Northern Ireland affairs. That is what the process of political development is all about. If, in the coming months, we can come to a system of restoring the dialogue again—of trying to find that lasting accommodation—I hope that these debates will, in the near future, become a thing of the past.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish, first, to welcome the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to his office. We did not have an opportunity earlier in the debate to do that. I wish him every success in his new job.
  When replying to the debate, he referred to the question of dialogue. I appeal to the Government to try in future, when arranging business affecting Northern Ireland, especially in relation to renewing emergency provisions legislation, to try to provide time for adequate dialogue across the Floor of the House so that we may better explore and expose the issues.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order for me, but I have no doubt that it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

  Trident Refit (Scottish Economy)
  7 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
  Leave having been given this day under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss:
  The decision by the Cabinet on the Trident refit and its effect on the Scottish economy.
  I wish at the outset to thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting this emergency debate, which represents a recognition, at least by the Chair, of the gravity of the Government's announcement today, particularly as it affects Scotland.
  Today's announcement represents a vague promise made on the back of a broken promise. The Government have had to promise a programme of work to Rosyth because previous promises to Rosyth about the Trident contract have been shamefully and completely broken. One cannot disguise the extent to which the workers of Rosyth have been let down by a Conservative Government.
  It is not simply I who am saying that. Unfortunately, the only Conservative Scottish Members here today are lickspittle Scottish Members. I wish that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) had been in his place today because—
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: He is ill.
  Mr. Foulkes: I know he is ill, but he can still speak to the press. He speaks forcibly to the press and he speaks for Scotland far more than his hon. Friends on the Government Benches speak for Scotland. He is reported by today's Glasgow Evening Times as having said:
  "I have no faith in a Government which has behaved in such a diseased way."
  That is the voice of a real Scots Tory with guts.
  The promises that the Government made to Rosyth were unequivocal. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in November 1984 that the Government had settled where the Trident refits would be carried out, and he said that they would be at Rosyth. That position was repeated by Ministers from the Dispatch Box month after month, year after year, throughout the 1980s.
  By the time the Government eventually reneged on that promise, over £100 million had been spent on a purpose-built facility for Trident. That money has now been poured down the drain. The taxpayers in the south-west of England and in Scotland will not be rejoicing at that waste of their money.
  Lord Younger, Secretary of State when the commitments were given, wrote in his famous letter to The Times that
  "a matter of good faith is involved here."
  He made it clear in that letter that he had given his word, on behalf of the Cabinet and the Government, to the people of Scotland that the submarine refit would go to Rosyth. He is now aware that his word of honour has been abused by the Government in backtracking on the clear pledges that were given.
  As hon. Members pointed out earlier in the day, the present Secretary of State for Defence was then Secretary of State for Scotland and was party to the decision. Perhaps we shall have the spectre in five or 10 years' time

  503
  of Lord Rifkind writing to The Times complaining that the pledges that he has made today to Rosyth have been cast aside in another display of bad faith.
  The future of Rosyth as the largest industrial concern is vital to the future of much of industry in Scotland. It is therefore vital that the Government fulfil their obligation to Rosyth, and get the figures right. In that connection, why is there not a consultative document before the House? When we have one, will it contain the full figures rather than the global figures that the Secretary of State gave in his statement?
  I also remind the House that the existence of the naval base at Rosyth is inextricably linked to the future of the dockyard. The overall effect of the closure of Rosyth dockyard—were that to take place—would be the loss of up to 18,000 jobs in an area of already high unemployment. Hundreds of companies throughout Scotland are involved in work for the dockyard. Will the Secretary of State now do what he would not do earlier and estimate how much it would cost the taxpayer if all those jobs were lost?
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does the hon. Gentleman not have a little shame in standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box complaining about job losses, when for many years Labour spokesmen called for the cancellation of Trident and for massive cuts in defence spending? Is he aware that, if those demands had been met, there would have been many more job losses at Rosyth and elsewhere?
  Mr. Foulkes: I feel no shame whatever. The hon. Gentleman should feel shame as the PPS to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will he imposing many cuts on the people of Britain, not just on people of Scotland.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) asked him. In 1987, the hon. Gentleman signed an early-day motion calling for the cancellation of Trident. He knows that, if his proposals and that motion had been accepted, there would be no jobs at Rosyth or Faslane for Scotland or for any other part of the United Kingdom. Does he regret signing that early-day motion? If not, how does he reconcile it with his protest today?
  Mr. Foulkes: I am flattered that the Secretary of State pays so much attention to my signature on early-day motions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is clear that the Government gave a commitment—[interruption.]—that Scotland, having the Faslane base on the west coast of Scotland, should have the benefit of the refitting on the east coast of Scotland.
  Mr. Rifkind rose——
  Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech, when perhaps he will answer some of the other questions that I am putting to him.
  The defence arguments for the survival of Rosyth are also pressing. It is common sense that all the nation's ship refitting facilities should not be located at one yard. The same argument applies to retaining a nuclear submarine refitting capability at one yard.
  504
  For those strategic reasons, the Opposition have consistently campaigned for both yards to be kept open. Remember, submarines and their missiles are designed to be used in time of war, and at such times it is not inconceivable that refitting facilities would be targets. Having only one centre would leave us extremely vulnerable.
  The pledges given in the past to Rosyth, including those by the recently deposed Chancellor when he was Minister for Defence Procurement, about the purpose-built facilities, are not irrelevant today. Are we to believe today's promises any more than we should have believed the false promises that were given in the 1980s? One need only examine the Tory election manifesto to find further evidence of promises made and broken—on taxes, benefits and tax cuts—in the past 12 months.
  Until we have the real, full details of the announcement from the Secretary of State. we, the people of Rosyth and the people of Scotland will remain highly sceptical. When will the consultative document be published? Why is it not ready today? What sort of consultation will be carried out, and how long will it go on? Can we believe that it will be any different from the other consultations which the Ministry of Defence has had recently and which have turned out to be nothing more than rubber-stamping exercises, whether they were about Royal Naval stores, the Defence Research Agency or the Portland base? We need to know a lot more before this vague promise can be accepted as a copper-bottomed guarantee.
  As I said earlier, the strong feeling in Scotland is that 18 ships is not enough. That is tiny compared with the 79 surface ships refitted at Rosyth over the past 10 years. The Secretary of State said in reply to my earlier questions that some of those 79 were smaller ships, unlike the 18 large ships. Will he tell us what guarantees there are of those smaller ships in the future?
  Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to. The hon. Gentleman asked about the minor warships. There are 49 minor warships due to be refitted over the next few years, and all 49 will be refitted at Rosyth. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Foulkes: No one can be ungrateful for what the Secretary of State has said, but I will come to the reality.
  Mr. David Harris: But leaving that aside.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am not leaving anything aside. I will deal with it in detail. We need detailed figures.
  The Secretary of State is surely aware that, given the Government's record, the workers at Rosyth will not be satisfied with blanket assurances and any overall total. If the Government have worked out a 12-year plan so exactly as to present it to the House, they should be able to set out a more exact timetable.
  What ships will he refitted and when? What will be the level of work, under this so-called guaranteed programme of work, each year for the next 12 years? I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us that in his speech.
  Will the Secretary of State tell us how he arrived at the total number of job losses at Rosyth and Devonport'? Is he aware that the management at Rosyth are saying that the best case scenario will lead to 700 job losses, not the 450 that the Secretary of State claimed. That best case scenario assumes the refitting of one type 42, one type 23 and one type 22 every 18 months in addition to three aircraft carriers and 10 Hunt class mine warfare vessels. Can the

  505
  Secretary of State tell us precisely whether that is the level of work that will be offered to Rosyth? I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman inquires further of the management at Rosyth, he will find that the figure of 700 includes jobs involved in non-Ministry of Defence work. The hon. Gentleman should recall that in my statement I referred to 18 major warships in addition to the 49 minor vessels that I mentioned just now.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State is wrong. I did check. There are 2,700 jobs at Rosyth on Ministry of Defence work. The management at Rosyth said that they will he able to sustain a maximum of 2,000 on the best case scenario, which, as I have said, is the refitting of one type 42, one type 23 and one type 22 every 18 months, in addition to three aircraft carriers, and 10 Hunt class mine warfare vessels. That is the very least guarantee we need, and I hope that the Secretary of State can give it tonight.
  What will be the minimum total value of contracts placed with each yard over the 12-year period that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has specified? That will give us an idea of the balance of work for Rosyth compared with that for Devonport.
  Given the state of defence planning and the monthly abandonment of commitments by the Government, how much credence can we give to today's announcement? How can we take seriously the promise of a fixed number of ship refits from a Government who are not only running down the size of the surface fleet but refuse to give an exact number for the size of the frigate destroyer fleet? As one of my hon. Friends said to me earlier, allocated work does not mean guaranteed work. Other yards which have had refitting will testify to that.
  After today's announcement, we must ask what will happen to Rosyth after the year 2000, as its programme of work is run down over five years. There is the question of what will happen to the shipbuilding yards in the commercial sector which may have expected some of the surface refitting work to be allocated to Rosyth.
  Has the Secretary of State made an estimate of what will happen to those shipyards? How many job losses will there be in those yards over the next 12 years, as the size of the surface fleet continues to reduce? The Secretary of State may remember that Lord Chalfont, chairman of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., said on "Panorama" in March that, if Government policy continues as it is at present, the seven private yards could be as few as one or two by the end of the century.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will have a chance to speak. I said that I would be as brief as possible, because many of my colleagues wish to speak.
  The Secretary of State has acknowledged in a very——
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is good liaison on the shipyards between the south-west and Scotland, and I pay tribute to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for the help that I often receive from them. However, if the announcement today had been that the refitting contract was going to Rosyth, will he tell the workers at Devonport whether there would have been an
  506
  emergency debate? Are not those on the Opposition Front Bench having their strings pulled by the Opposition Members sitting around them?
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I did not receive a copy of the Secretary of State's statement until 3 o'clock this afternoon. My request for an emergency debate went in before noon.
  The Secretary of State has acknowledged in a limited way the importance of planning. He sought to assure the House that strategy for Rosyth will be set out and guaranteed for the next 12 years. Leaving aside the doubts that I have expressed, which are felt by all Opposition Members, over the validity of guarantees from the Secretary of State, will he concede the value of such strategic planning? His defence policy completely lacks such strategic planning.
  The suspicion is that this is not really the admission of planning into defence policy, but a manoeuvre brought about by political expediency. The concessions announced by the Secretary of State today—this is probably the most important thing I shall say—have come about as a result of the dedicated campaigning and pressure brought to bear by those at Rosyth.
  That view was underlined today by the comments of Alan Smith of Babcock Thorn, who expressed thanks for the efforts of employees, trade unions and local councils. I pay tribute to those efforts, and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who campaigned so well. We all wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West a speedy recovery. We would not have had the guarantees from the Government without that campaign.
  We will keep up the pressure to ensure that the Government fulfil in hard contracts the promises made today. The real test of this announcement is whether they are cheering at Rosyth today. They are not. Instead, cries of anguish are echoing across the Forth. Those are the people for whom we speak.
  I hope that, in voting for the Adjournment motion, Opposition Members will show their support for a two-dockyard solution, for a strategic plan for the defence requirements of this country, and for the economic needs of this country into the next century.
  7.18 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): This evening, Babcock Thorn, the management of Rosyth dockyard, issued a statement saying that its objective is to become the premier yard in the United Kingdom for surface ship refitting. The management have identified an important and valuable role for Rosyth. I believe that the statement that I made earlier, which indicates that in addition to the 18 major warships there will be 49 other vessels to be.refitted at Rosyth over the next 12 years, means that Babcock Thorn and its work force and the community in Rosyth can look forward to a large amount of work. That work will require thousands of people carrying out dedicated work in Rosyth in the interests of the Royal Navy and that will continue for many years to come.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I will give way in a moment. I must be allowed to begin my remarks.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and noticed that, as is the tradition with the Labour party at the present time, a number of things were set aside. He not only set aside the call that he made some years ago for Trident to be scrapped, but he refused to answer the direct question whether he regretted that call and, if not, whether he could now reconcile it with his passionate case for Trident work going to Rosyth. I am happy to give way now if he wants to answer.
  Mr. Tony Worthington rose——
  Dr. Norman A. Godman rose——
  Mr. Home Robertson rose——
  Mr. Rifkind: Three Labour Members want to answer that question, but the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley remains silent. That is probably a wise decision.
  That is not all that is being set aside. A few days ago, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley called for a solution that involved two dockyards with a future and not one. Today's announcement ensures two dockyards with a future. Two days ago, he called for an allocated work programme to the non-nuclear yard of 10 years. Today, we announced one of 12 years. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his request has been more than met?
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Secretary of State said that Rosyth was to be the surface ship refit yard. Will he comment on the four submarines that are currently at Rosyth—Churchill, Dreadnought, Swiftsure and Revenge? If we cannot have refit work on the Forth, we certainly do not want scrapped nuclear hulks there. They should be down the Forth on the next tide.
  Mr. Rifkind: We want to discuss the decommissioned submarines with Rosyth. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There are no technical reasons why the submarines have to be at Rosyth rather than another port. That can be discussed and I am sure that we shall reach an amicable decision, which will meet the interests of the Royal Navy and reflect the current situation.
  We shall shortly publish a consultative document. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley got into a lather about why it was not published today. He knows perfectly well that the matters were concluded and endorsed by the Cabinet only this morning and it takes a little time thereafter to produce the document. It will be published and the consultative period will start from the date of publication. I believe that it is appropriate that we should offer those directly concerned the opportunity to offer views on what we have announced. The purpose of the consultative period is to ensure that we have missed nothing in taking our decision. At the same time, I must make it clear that we have not made today's announcement lightly and I would be surprised if anything new came out of that consultation period.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made much of statements made in the 1980s about the future of nuclear refitting. Those statements were made
  508
  in good faith as, no doubt, was the hon. Gentleman's repudiation of Trident. The statements were entirely proper in the international situation that then faced us. When we made our plans for the future of nuclear refitting, who could have foreseen the end of the cold war, the end of the Soviet Union and the cataclysmic changes that have taken place and have resulted in a significantly smaller Royal Navy and additional capacity at Devonport and Rosyth? Those changes, which are highly welcome at the end of the cold war, have affected many aspects of our defence planning and have required us to rethink our plans in a number of areas, of which nuclear refitting is just one.
  When it became apparent, for reasons that no one foresaw, that we would have more refit capacity and did not therefore have to rely on a new purpose-built facility, it would have been unforgiveable not to take advantage of the opportunities that that provided. That decision was not taken today or in the past few months—it was initiated two years ago. Some of the comments that we have heard today suggested that it had come as a total surprise that there had been a competition between Devonport and Rosyth for nuclear work, but in fact it was initiated in July 1991. Hon. Members knew that, and it was known at the time of the last general election. We did not go into the general election promising the Trident work to one yard rather than another. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley must control himself rather than make such claims.
  The reduction in the size of the fleet, and the consequent reduction in our refit requirements, made it possible to carry out nuclear refitting in upgraded existing docks. That lay behind today's statement. Taking that approach allowed us to save the Royal Navy and the taxpayer more than £250 million. I am sure that no one seriously suggests that we should have done otherwise.
  I was asked earlier about the use of consultants. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) raised that matter when he saw my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. A range of specialist consultants have given advice: in particular, Coopers and Lybrand and, under contract to it, Allott and Lomax, which provided civil engineering advice, and AEA Technology, which provided advice on nuclear safety. They assessed the aspects of the proposals from the two contractors which fell within their area of expertise. It is quite proper so to use consultants, and that is what we would normally be expected to do. Their advice to us, quite properly, included much commercially sensitive information as well as classified material. It will obviously be published, so far as that is possible, and I can assure the House that the consultative document will be a full and free-standing explanation of the decision that we announced today.
  My statement today was on the future of both yards. The future of Devonport will be based around the nuclear refitting work. The future of Rosyth will depend on its transition to a yard which can compete effectively for surface ship work. As I explained, that is not an easy transition, nor one that can be accomplished overnight. That is why, to help Rosyth accomplish the transition, we have set out an allocated programme, longer than the Opposition called for, which provides maximum opportunities.
  Mr. Foulkes: The crux is the difference between allocated and guaranteed. I called for a guaranteed programme. The Secretary of State has given an allocated

  509
  programme, and he said a few minutes ago that Rosyth will be able to compete. That means that there is no guarantee whatsoever.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is getting carried away and not thinking before he speaks. I said that more than half the surface ship programme was allocated to Rosyth. The competition will be for the other half of the surface ship programme. It is quite possible that Rosyth, Devonport and the shipbuilders will be able to compete for that work, and I very much hope that Rosyth will win a proportion of it.
  Dr. John Reid: I am glad of that clarification, although it was not necessary as we already understood that. [ Interruption.] I assure Conservative Members that we all did. We would like clarification of the first half. Is a guarantee being given to the people of Rosyth that the first half—unqualified allocations—will go to Rosyth, with no tendering, no negotiations, nothing to do with price and nothing to do with conditions? [Interruption.] Ah! Or are we talking about the intention to give it, subject to price and subject to negotiation? In other words, is the first half subject to no guarantee whatsoever, as we have been saying?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman can do better than that. We have said that in the next 12 years 18 major warships and all the minor warships will go to Rosyth. Allocated programmes are not new. We have had allocated programmes for Rosyth and Devonport for a number of years. Of course we hold discussions with the yard about price. We cannot simply say, "Whatever you charge we will automatically pay." The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) knows that that was a silly remark. I know that he did not mean it and that he certainly will not repeat it when he has thought about it.
  We discuss with the allocated yard the price to be paid for a project to ensure that the taxpayer is not ripped off. That has been true of the way in which allocated programmes have been handled for Rosyth and Devonport. There is no change in the way in which allocated programmes are used. They have provided work for Rosyth and Devonport in the past, and that is what will happen in the future. It will be the same with Devonport. Devonport, in effect, has an allocated programme of the nuclear work. That does not mean that we shall give it the programme, whatever it charges. We shall discuss the price to be paid with Devonport.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I should like to continue. The hon. Member will have a chance to comment later.
  The allocated programme builds on Rosyth's substantial experience of surface ship refitting. Many comments have been made in the past few weeks and months suggesting that Rosyth has no experience of surface ships. That is absolute nonsense. Rosyth has dealt with more than 79 surface ships, including frigates and destroyers, in the past few years. That is a very heavy programme.
  The phasing will be organised in a way consistent with the practical management of the refit programme and ensuring a smooth transition from a mix of nuclear and non-nuclear work to refitting on surface ships only. The full allocation will include some of the Royal Navy's newest, largest and most advanced vessels, including
  510
  aircraft carriers such as Ark Royal and Invincible, neither of which has been dealt with at Rosyth in the past. Both will be available for refit at Rosyth.
  Refitting an aircraft carrier is a major industrial task. It is perhaps not appreciated that it involves 65,000 man weeks of work and takes two years to complete. That is very similar to the length of time required for a Trident submarine refit. I have indicated that Ark Royal and Invincible will be available for work not at Devonport but at Rosyth as a result of the announcements today. It is a huge technical project requiring a wide range of engineering skills of the highest order. At the peak of refitting an aircraft carrier, 1,000 persons will be on the site on that vessel alone, quite apart from any others.
  Mr. James Wallace: It has been reported this evening that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland used the words "guaranteed programme of work". The Secretary of State for Defence has not so far used the word "guaranteed". Can he now tell us that there will be a guaranteed programme of work?
  Mr. Rifkind: That is the distinction between guaranteed and allocated. I have indicated quite categorically and unequivocally the number of ships that will go to Rosyth, and their classes.
  Several hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Rifkind: Many hon. Members want to speak in this short debate, and a long speech from me would not be fair to them.
  These refits present considerable engineering challenges, but we are satisfied that Rosyth will be fully capable of meeting them and, indeed, will use this work as a springboard to bid for non-allocated work.
  I am pleased at the response to my statement this afternoon from the chairman of Babcock Thorn, who said that he would direct all his efforts to ensuring that the programme of work was delivered and maxiinised. He said—I can do no better than repeat his words—that he believed that he could undertake the work and face competition with confidence and success. That is important. We know perfectly well how, until today, both yards maintained that that would not be possible if they did not win the nuclear work. Now that that matter has been resolved, it is good that Rosyth is facing the new opportunity in such a positive way. I welcome that attitude, and I am sure that the chairman's optimism will be justified.
  With regard to employment, as in the past we expect both companies to continue to improve their productivity and hence their competitiveness. It is to be hoped that the increased competitiveness will enable the companies concerned at both yards to increase their workloads and hence their profitability. In that way, it should be possible to increase both productivity and efficiency and at the same time maintain or, indeed, increase employment levels. As at present, we expect the companies concerned at the two dockyards to continue to seek and to obtain commercial work to augment that provided by the Ministry of Defence. Such work tends to be of a general engineering nature, of which recent examples have included the refitting of railway carriages, refurbishing engines and other projects, both at Devonport and at Rosyth.

  511
  As I indicated this afternoon, however, the total Ministry of Defence workload is planned to decline towards the end of this decade. On the basis of the number of employees currently assessed as being necessary to fulfil Ministry of Defence work, there will be reductions of the order that I indicated earlier today. I acknowledge that, while 450 jobs at Rosyth or, for that matter, 350 at Devonport appear relatively few in terms of the total work force, it is regrettable that there should be any losses at all. We hope very much that both Rosyth and Devonport will be able to develop new areas of activity, thereby reducing the number of necessary job losses.
  Our calculation of the employment consequences of the Government's proposals are based on detailed discussions with the two companies about their future business plans. Obviously the details of those discussions are confidential between us and the dockyard companies, but I can say that both companies put forward proposals both for nuclear refitting and for surface work only. The plans were discussed with the companies and with our specialist advisers. Thus, we have had from both yards information as to what a surface work programme might consist of.
  I am conscious of the fact that this is a short debate. Having given way on a number of occasions, I intend now to come to a conclusion. Before doing so, however, I should say that I do not hide from the House or from anyone else the fact that this has been a difficult and painful decision. I am well aware of the aspirations at both Rosyth and Devonport, but I do not intend to take from Opposition Members—most of whom did not want Trident in Scotland in the first place—complaints about the outcome. That goes for the nationalist party in particular, which continues to hold that view. That did not make our decision any easier. What did make it easier, however, was the knowledge that the Royal Navy requires two dockyards, not one.
  Over the past few months we have seen how the competition on the nuclear work has been of enormous benefit in saving the Royal Navy more than £250 million. That would not have happened had only one dockyard been in existence. The same principles apply to the surface ship programme, which consists of very many large warships. Therefore, I believe that those who, for very understandable reasons, will continue to be concerned about the future can take very considerable comfort from the fact that having two dockyards will not simply be beneficial in employment terms or helpful in resolving a difficult problem but will also provide major benefits for the Royal Navy. As a consequence, I believe that they can command confidence and support.
  Madam Speaker: This is a very brief debate, and I seek the co-operation of hon. Members. I hope that speeches will be short so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The decision that was announced today may have consequences for the next 30 years. It is therefore extremely important that we should examine with some care the precise use of language that we heard in the statement delivered earlier and in the speech that has just been made. It is important also that we should remind ourselves precisely what Lord Younger felt
  512
  compelled to write to The Times about a fortnight ago. In his letter, which has been quoted partly but not in its entirety, he says that he understands that the Government will soon be making a decision as to whether to maintain their intention to refit our nuclear submarines at Rosyth. He says:
  "I believe that the financial and operational case for doing so is now clear, as is the strong case for concentrating our refitting of surface warships at Devonport."
  Thus, in the opinion of Lord Younger, a two-yard solution, with Rosyth taking the nuclear submarines and Devonport concentrating on surface warships, is the preferred conclusion. The noble Lord says:
  "There is now, therefore, a clear opportunity to confirm a long-term role for both Rosyth and Devonport which will serve the Royal Navy well and safeguard thousands of jobs in both locations.
  Before a final decision is taken, I feel I must remind all concerned"—
  no doubt he had Ministers in mind when he said that—
  "of a matter of good faith which is involved here."
  The next paragraph refers to the noble Lord's efforts to persuade public opinion in Scotland to accept Faslane. He goes on to say:
  "One of the most powerful arguments which I deployed was there would obviously be many jobs for Scotland associated with operating and maintaining the submarines. I know that many in Scotland would therefore feel badly let down if a major part of these jobs were now to be removed from Scotland.
  I hope it will be understood that I would find it impossible to support such a move as my good faith would clearly be called into question."
  One could hardly have a clearer statement from a former Secretary of State for Defence who was previously Secretary of State for Scotland. That clearly shows the extent to which he believed that a commitment had been given.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): The hon. and learned Gentleman may like to know that I spoke to Lord Younger today, who declared himself well satisfied with the arrangements announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Mr. Campbell: I had a small side bet with myself that, at some stage in the debate, there would be an intervention of that kind. We shall wait to see whether, in two days' time, The Times carries a letter telling us that the earlier one has been withdrawn, that the former Secretary of State for Defence no longer feels that his good faith has been impugned by the decision that the Government announced today. I shall wait for that letter before I make a judgment on the extent to which Lord Younger may have changed his mind.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he is saying exactly what he said on the "Today" programme yesterday—that it is Liberal defence policy that the submarine refit should go to Rosyth? If he and the Liberal party believe that the work should go to Rosyth and not to Devonport, why have his colleagues in the west country been saying that it is Liberal policy to support the bid by Devonport?
  Mr. Campbell: I have addressed several meetings of workers from both dockyards, and I do not recall the hon. Gentleman being there. During the past 12 months, I have made it clear that a two-yard solution was appropriate, with the submarine work going to Rosyth and the surface

  513
  work to Devonport. That solution lends itself to the host. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). If the hon. Gentleman is trying to claim that every party has a universal view on the matter, he is grossly mistaken. Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the south-west have campaigned on behalf of their constituencies; who would have expected them to do anything other than that? They have campaigned on behalf of their constituents, which I regard as entirely right and proper.
  Mr. Nicholls rose——
  Mr. Campbell: I shall not give way. When it comes to wisdom, I think that I can do rather better than the hon. Gentleman.
  Several hon. Members rose——
  Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will resume their seats.
  Mr. Campbell: As my party's defence spokesman, I have made my position clear over the past 12 months. If the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has only just woken up to it, that suggests that he has not followed the issue with much concentration.
  I want to deal with the words used in the Secretary of State's statement. He told us that work was to be "allocated". "Allocated" means nothing more than "assigned", and work which is allocated can be reallocated. A moment ago, in response to an intervention, the Secretary of State tried to say that the position of Devonport was the same as that of Rosyth. He should read his own statement. He said:
  "I am therefore announcing today our conclusion that, subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations, we shall proceed with the Devonport nuclear refitting facility proposals."
  There is to be a contractual relationship in respect of the nuclear submarine refitting, but we are not told that there will be a contractual relationship for 12 years for the allocation of work to Rosyth.
  The language of today's statement carries the same emphasis and has the same substance as that which Lord Younger used many times when arguing the case on behalf of Rosyth. If the language used by Lord Younger can now be departed from, the same could apply to that used by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Harris: The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly emphasises the importance of language. Will he explain something to the House and, in particular, to the voters in the south-west? In a BBC interview yesterday and again today, he said that he was speaking in his capacity as the defence spokesman for the Liberal party. Were the Liberal Members of Parliament from the south-west and the candidates in the county council elections in Cornwall and Devon saying something completely different? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that they were not presenting Liberal party policy, or is it simply a case of the hon. and learned Gentleman saying one thing to some audiences, especially in Scotland, while his party, true to form, is saying something completely different in the south-west?
  Mr. Campbell: If I am trying to conceal my position, going on the "Today" programme and telling the world
  514
  what it is is a pretty rum way of doing so. Those who argued for Devonport did so on a constituency basis, just as some Conservative Members argued against the hon. Member for Tayside, North and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross. Is the hon. Gentleman denying the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross the right to express his opinion? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not to be allowed to express his opinion because it might be contrary to the views of Conservative Members from the west country? [Interruption.] We appear to be taking part in the first round of what one might describe as Operation Christchurch. There is more emphasis on that than on the merits of the argument with which we are concerned.
  When Lord Younger made his commitment, the present Secretary of State for Defence was the Secretary of State for Scotland. The commitment was made publicly and repeatedly, and I do not think it is unreasonable to infer that it was also the commitment of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the present Secretary of State for Defence. If Lord Younger thinks that it is a question of good faith, is it unreasonable to ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he believes a question of good faith is now raised by his support for what he has announced today? It is a serious question to which we are entitled to an answer.
  One of the things that is forgotten is that the nuclear refitting work will be guaranteed. That will make a contribution to the fixed costs of Devonport, which will enable Devonport, quite legitimately, to offer the most competitive prices for surface work. Which hon. Member of any party believes that in five years the Treasury will say that, because it had been stated on an evening in June in 1993 that the work would be allocated to Rosyth, it must abide by that statement and that it cannot explore the possibility of obtaining cheaper prices by going to Devonport? I cannot believe that anyone considers that a reasonable proposition.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the workers of Swan Hunter would endorse that point? They were promised the Royal Fleet Auxiliary work which was then taken from them and given to the people who built the Trident boats, which are now to be refitted at Devonport. They can make a sufficiently low bid because their overheads have been carried by the Trident programme.
  Mr. Campbell: Precisely. The cost of this type of operation is as dependent on fixed costs as on revenue costs, so the advantage that Devonport will enjoy, quite legitimately, will give it a pre-eminent position in competition. Who believes that the Government will say that there can be no competition because, on an evening in June, they had said that they had allocated work to Rosyth?
  Dr. Godman: As a lawyer, is the hon. and learned Gentleman completely satisfied that the allocation of commercial contracts for the refitting of warships to a commercially managed facility does not in any way infringe European Community directives on competition and public procurement?
  Mr. Campbell: If the word "allocated" is used, it does not. If another form of language were used, which implied a contractual obligation, there might be a contravention.

  515
  The word "allocated" has clearly been used advisedly for, among others, the reason suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  It was notable that the words "strategic" and "operational" did not appear in the Secretary of State's statement, although Lord Younger clearly believed that operational matters in respect of nuclear submarines would best be served by a solution involving that work being allocated to Rosyth.
  The cold war has finished. One does not wish to be too apocalyptic, but there have been substantial developments in missile technology. Which member of the Government will tell us that within the next 30 years no unfriendly country will have available to it missile technology that might enable it, if it were so minded, to target what may turn out to be the sole refitting yard in the United Kingdom? It is not sensible to create circumstances in which, through the operation of the marketplace, all refitting work is concentrated in one location. Equally, is it not sensible to take account of the fact—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has something to say, no doubt he will try to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, rather than making inaudible observations from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sorry, but I was having great difficulty in following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, because he started his speech by saying that all the refitting of nuclear submarines should be concentrated at Rosyth, but now he is saying that we should not concentrate the work in one place because of the threat from nuclear missiles. Can he explain that to the House?
  Mr. Campbell: That is not what I said, and if the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard he will realise that. I said that we should not concentrate all our refitting work, submarine and surface, in one place. That would not make strategic sense.
  There is also an operational reason for putting nuclear submarine refitting work at Rosyth. It is a gentle two hours by car from Faslane, where the submarines will be based. If ready access to information and equipment is needed, how better to obtain it than in two locations only two hours apart?
  I look forward with interest to hearing the request from the work force at Devonport that they should now take the four decommissioned nuclear submarines sitting at Rosyth. The Secretary of State said that there would be negotiation about that, but I fancy that the negotiation may be rather one-sided, with the management of Rosyth saying, "Take them away; we do not want them." Where will they go? Will they be towed to Devonport? The people of Devonport may have something to say about that.
  In a letter that must have been written in full knowledge of the changed circumstances on which the Secretary of State for Defence sought to rely in his speech, Lord Younger continued to advance the view that a two-yard solution was not only possible but desirable. The Government have failed to heed that advice, and in that respect I believe that they have failed in their responsibility.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I welcome this short debate, which follows a long period of doubt and argument. For me the past 24 hours have been the worst in many months. I really began to feel that Rosyth's argument for the maintenance of the submarine refit programme was about to disappear. The importance of the programme was the monopoly effect, and the long-term guarantee of work for people within the successful dockyard for many years to come.
  The nuclear deterrence programme is a platform on which Scottish Tory Members of Parliament have long stood. We have argued the case with vigour, and in Scotland we used to be told that we were on a most unpopular platform. All the Opposition parties spoke against us. We welcomed the nuclear deterrent submarine fleet to Scotland, both to Faslane, where the operations were based, and to Rosyth, where we maintained the Polaris fleet successfully for many years. I must express my regret that the long tradition established over that period is about to disappear.
  I stood for election in Dunfermline, West in 1987. I was a former dockyard apprentice, and I believed that I was arguing for the dockyard and for common sense dockyard policies. It did not do me a lot of good, I must admit, although the Labour party and the Scottish National party both opposed Trident. At that time the Labour party was prepared to decimate defence spending, so the result of the election defied belief.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Younger. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that times change, and that the ending of the cold war has brought a major change. When Lord Younger was Secretary of State for Defence, defence spending was rising year by year. And year by year Opposition spokesmen said, "Cut that expenditure. It is disgraceful. We should spend the money elsewhere." Now defence spending is falling, and we must examine the realities of the financial arguments. We must get the best deal possible for the money that the MOD spends on land, at sea and in the air. We must seek the best value.
  On that basis our requirements had to be re-examined. I am sad to say that the re-examination was not at any time to Rosyth's advantage. I regret the need; I regret that that had to happen. In December and January things looked gloomy for Rosyth. But I am delighted to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland appeared to step in and to use a heck of a lot of influence to ensure that there was a rethink, and the Government pulled back from what seemed an inevitable decision in favour of Devonport. My right hon. Friend ensured that there was a level playing field, and Rosyth was given a chance to submit a fresh bid.
  At that time the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley criticised the Government in the House for the delay, just as he criticised the Government yesterday for having taken so long to come to a decision. But I should say that it was in the interests of Rosyth and of Scotland that the Government took such a long time. We had to ensure that the final decision was based soundly on both economic and strategic sense. The time that has been taken suggests to me that the decisions have been reached on a logical basis.
  Dr. Godman rose——
  Mr. Gallie: I give way to my——
  Dr. Godman: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was going to call me his hon. Friend. There is a good deal of sense in what he says about times changing, but some things remain constant, and one of those is ministerial bad faith. It was Lord Younger who, as Mr. George Younger, sold Scott Lithgow down the river despite his promises to support that yard's submarine-building capability. He reneged on those promises, and that is my fear with that odd-job lot on the Government Front Bench. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's confidence in them.
  Mr. Gallie: Clearly the lion. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godrnan) and I differ about some things. On occasion we share common views, but certainly not on this issue. I identify with his recent comments on law and order, but those are not the subject of the debate tonight.
  Over recent months a heck of a lot of hypocrisy has been in evidence. I have been delighted to work with Members of all shades of political opinion from all parts of Scotland to try to project the Rosyth argument. I believe that we had a good argument. Yet I hear that I have been criticised. I believe that I was called a "lickspittle" tonight by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. That is shameful. I stick to my principles, not like the hon. Gentleman who changes from side to side. One day he believes in CND; the next clay he wants Trident at Rosyth. What nonsense. If he is talking about lickspittles, he should at least put his credentials to the test and stick to his principles.
  Recently, the Fife regional council became a nuclear-free zone. However, it wanted the Trident contract to remain at Rosyth. I must pay the people in the Fife region a compliment—they put up a good fight. It is a pity that they did not think about some of the things that they were saying before they were forced into the battleground.
  When I look at hon. Members from the Scottish National party—I must say this with a bit of humour—I remember recently watching families from Rosyth coming ashore at Westminster pier from a pleasure cruise. One member of the SNP was standing with a placard in one hand and a child in the other. What did the placard say? It said: "Rosyth is home for Trident". That is hypocrisy.
  Dr. Godman: What did the child say?
  Mr. Gallie: The child believed what the placard said because her family fortunes had been tied up for many years in the maintenance of the nuclear programme.
  We must examine the strategic reasons why Devonport has been selected. There is a 90-day period in which we must examine the credentials. Rosyth's strongest argument was its link with Faslane. I believe than. that important aspect was considered but I would like further confirmation. From the figures presented, there is little doubt that Devonport's argument was fairly won. Once again, the figures must be presented and scrutinised. They will be carefully analysed over the next few weeks.
  The dismal feelings that I had yesterday were based on a belief that we were faced with many thousands of job losses in either Devonport or Rosyth. I am pleased that the figures announced by the Secretary of State for Defence do
  518
  not justify our worst fears. Having said that, the loss of 450 jobs at Rosyth is something that I do not welcome. Indeed, I regret it.
  Rosyth has the competence to maintain the surface fleet in the next 10 years. The work force will build their skills and achieve a level of excellence that will ensure that they can compete with any other yard in the land in the years ahead. Rosyth will have a future based on the skills, enthusiasm and drive of its excellent work force. I welcome the words of the management at Rosyth today who stressed that their aim was to become the premium yard in the United Kingdom for surface ship refitting. They have a premium work force and will achieve that aim.
  Over the next 90 days, I seek an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend on the issue of the allocated vessels. At Rosyth, a level of skills has been built up in the nuclear health physics field, but those skills will not be able to be used fully in the coming years. Rosyth and Devonport have maintained traditional links over the years. I would like to think that there will be a place for some of the workers at Rosyth to undertake the nuclear work at Devonport in the years ahead. One aspect that I must not ignore is the fact that 3,000 jobs are still tied up at Faslane. Faslane is important to the Scottish economy and we must not forget that.
  In conclusion, I simply record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who met the Scottish Conservative Back-Benchers. He listened attentively and seemed to have a good grasp of all the issues. I thank the Secretary of State for Defence, who had an open door for us, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who listened to us yesterday when there was a late bid from Rosyth. Above all, I thank the Secretary of State for Scotland. I share his disappointment tonight. His enthusiasm and determination for a prosperous Scotland and a prosperous Rosyth for the future will be ongoing.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: We do not need any lectures on principles from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) made a distinguished and excellent presentation at one of our joint parliamentary press conferences. The difference between that presentation and his speech tonight is marked. One issue that annoys the Scots intently is that Conservative Members speak with one tongue in Scotland, speak with another voice on joint platforms and say something else again in the Chamber. That is hypocrisy. Essentially, that is at the heart of the problem.
  The key political issue that the Government have tried to avoid is the betrayal over the question of Trident coming to Rosyth. It does not matter how we dress up the alternative—we have simply ignored the issue of why, after so many promises, Trident has gone to Devonport and the surface fleet has gone to Rosyth.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: I will not give way.
  In my constituency this evening, there is concern about the statement. There are three parts to that concern. Between now and the year 2000, we will have allocations but no guarantees. Between the year 2000 and 2005, we will have fewer allocations and simply no guarantees. What will happen beyond 2005? There is no 30-year

  519
  guarantee for the apprentices and those who have made a commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom. We simply have a three-phase campaign which could result in a significant diminution of employment in Fife and Rosyth.
  The question that my constituents want answered is, when does an allocation become a guarantee? In a programme on Friday 18 June, John Foster, a member of the Scottish lobby, asked Lord Younger an important question about the future. I quote:
  "'Mr. Rifkind, the Defence Secretary, has always decreed that there will be two dockyards', he said. It has been suggested anyway that Rosyth, if it did not get the nuclear refitting, would get some guaranteed surface refitting work possibly for a period of years."
  The general view expressed in Scotland is that it is difficult to believe that there would be an effective solution for Rosyth because, presumably, the work would be competitive and there would have to be a level playing field. Anything less than a full-term guarantee that Rosyth will he written into surface refitting for the foreseeable future would not be good news.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No.
  The essential core political issue, which has not been addressed despite opportunities to do so, is the difference between an allocation and a guarantee. It is simply that the Government have no long-term intention of sticking to the commitment made to give the surface work to Rosyth. I challenge the Minister to translate the question of allocations into a specific guarantee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) got to the nub of the matter by suggesting that an allocation was not a guarantee. My constituents cannot pay mortgages or work on the basis of glib allocations, especially given the track record of the Conservative Government over the past decade. That major core issue has not been addressed.
  We have examined the figures given in the statement today. Our anlaysis differs greatly from that of the Secretary of State for Defence. No one believes that there will be only 450 job losses at Rosyth. The figure could be 1,000 or much higher. So the first question is, when will the Government come clean? I hope that the next 90 days will not masquerade as consultation but will give us the truth about the political package which the Government present as a business issue.
  What about the 12 years of work? I have already raised the point and I do not want to dwell on it. However, hon. Members have made the point that the largest number of allocations of work will not substitute for copper-bottomed guarantees to the work force, their families, Fife people and people throughout Scotland.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No. I will not give way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made it clear that the allocations of work could become complex if there were a problem of price or
  520
  scheduling of work. One is dealing with a reasonably small number of ships over a long period and with substantial technical work. My belief, which is shared by my constituents, is that the arrangement gives the Government an opportunity to duck their commitments, as they have done in previous years.
  We shall probe the Government on many outstanding issues. The main task of Labour Members is to secure the largest number of jobs for Rosyth. The statement today will not do so. That is why my hon. Friends have expressed anxieties about it.
  I have heard much hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches, but also from the Scottish National party. I wish to remind the House of a recommendation made by an SNP health council to a district council in Scotland on 25 November 1992. There was a debate about the future of Rosyth. The recommendation was that the district council
  "totally oppose the deployment of Trident to Rosyth Dockyard".
  The Conservatives then said the opposite. They wanted Rosyth to get the Trident refit. My friends in the party on that council moved that, in order to reach an agreed resolution that would satisfy all involved, the council should invite the management and work force to come to the council to make their case. The vote was 12:11. All the SNP members voted against inviting the management and work force to make their case. That is hypocrisy. I await with interest the comments this evening of any SNP Member.
  Scots know the guilty party in the betrayal of the promise of the Trident refit for Rosyth. They will not accept the overtures from the SNP, which did nothing to assist the campaign to help the work force to secure that contract. Scots will admire honesty and hard work on their behalf, but they will not accept the treachery of both the SNP and the Conservative party on this vital, strategic, industrial, employment and economic issue. That is the agenda. We shall continue our campaign.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to make a brief speech in this important debate. Naturally, the news that Devonport has won the Trident contract has been well received in Plymouth tonight. It has been a long and fierce battle. However, there is an affinity between Devonport and Rosyth dockyards. Of course, there will be an understanding in Devonport tonight of how the workers at Rosyth feel. There will be pleasure that the Government package announced this afternoon was a substantial package of jobs, hope and future for Rosyth. That news is also well received in Devonport and Plymouth tonight. It is what we want and we welcome it.
  We have heard a great deal about Rosyth in the debate tonight. That is right, but it is important for a few minutes to paint some of the background of the case for Devonport. I begin by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues in the Government for the way in which they have handled this difficult process of the contract race. My constituents understand what a difficult decision it has been and they respect the way in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have conducted themselves throughout.
  I wish to explain why the issue is so important to Devonport and paint the economic backdrop. All the traditional industries in the west country—agriculture, fishing, defence-related industries, tourism and so on—are

  521
  in decline for a range of reasons. Many Members of Parliament regard the west country as a pleasant place to go on holiday. So it is, but the backdrop to the region is economic decline. We have high unemployment and the economic trends are going against us.
  Our dockyard has a fine history. Devonport exists because of the dockyard. It has been there for 300 years. It is the reason why we are there. Since 1985, when the private management of the dockyard took over, we have lost 7,500 jobs through scaling down our defence needs. We have paid our part of the peace dividend. All of us in Plymouth know families who have lost jobs in the dockyard in the past seven years. We have taken our fair share of the pain, believe me.
  In addition to that backdrop, Plymouth is peripheral. As it is so far from other large cities, inward investment has not come our way very easily. That is not the case for the centre of Scotland. Plymouth is the engine room for the west country and the dockyard is the dynamo for that engine. That is why the issue is so important to us in Devonport. That is why we fought so hard.
  What was our case? It is perfectly true that some years ago there was no question but that the nuclear submarine would be maintained at the RD57 project at Rosyth; that was everyone's assumption. It would cost the taxpayer more than £450 million. But two years ago, the management at Devonport, headed by Mike Leece and Peter Whitehouse, realised that all the skills, equipment and facilities necessary to maintain the Trident submarine were found at Devonport. The dockyard could have a part of that work.
  The dockyard put forward a scheme to the Ministry of Defence. It was painstakingly put together. It drew on the experience that Devonport had of refitting nuclear submarines. It drew on the skills of our work force in Plymouth. It was substantially cheaper than the RD57 project. It would save the taxpayer more than £150 million. The bid had to be taken seriously. No responsible Government could have turned their back on that bid.
  Suddenly, there were two possible options for maintaining the Trident submarine. Rosyth rightly realised that the RD57 project was too expensive. It bravely made a bid based on upgrading its existing clocks. The Government had to decide between the bids. The Devonport bid put its capital cost at £236 million. Its operational costs were lower than those at Rosyth. It met the safety requirements. The two bids had to be taken seriously.
  Collocated with the dockyard at Plymouth is the Navy base. That is another reason why the dockyard is there. As it was so important to maintain the dockyard in Plymouth, the whole community swung behind the bid of Devonport Management Ltd., including the local authority under both Conservative and Labour control, the trade unions, the county council, the chamber of commerce and local Members of Parliament. They did so because it was vital to our community.
  It is perfectly true that we pressed the case. During the election campaign in April last year, the bid was the biggest issue that faced Plymouth, probably Devon and Cornwall and perhaps even the whole of the west country. In the election campaign, we saw the grotesque spectacle of the Labour defence spokesman coming to Plymouth and shouting for Devonport, then going up to Scotland and saying that the work must go to Rosyth.
  Mr. O'Neill: That is not true.
  Mr. Streeter: That is what the west country had to put up with all these years. I am bound to say—
  Mr. O'Neill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I am the person to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring, I must tell him that I did not do that—it is just not true. If he looks at the press clippings from both parts of the United Kingdom, he will see that what he said may be in a Tory party brief, but it is not the truth.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman might have sought to intervene—which he seems to have done.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for that intervention/point of order. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the press clippings again and at the leaflets distributed by the Labour party at the general election because he will see a different story. He is directly quoted as rooting for Devonport.
  For all the reasons that I have outlined, the community of Plymouth got behind the Devonport bid. We were fighting for our lives, for our city and for jobs for our young people. That was why there has been such a fierce debate and such a fiercely fought competition. I pay tribute to the management and work force of Devonport Management Ltd. which made the running in the contract race, and handled itself skilfully. I pay tribute to its tenacity and professionalism. Those are the reasons why its bid was successful.
  Why did we win the contract race? It was simply because our bid complied with the specifications of the Ministry of Defence. It was £64 million cheaper than the Rosyth bid in terms of capital and operational costs. What choice would any responsible Government have in those circumstances? The Navy was happy with the Devonport hid and clearly there was little choice for the Government but to accept it.
  The competition process has thrown up one successful result: the taxpayer has gained enormously—to the tune of about £250 million. No responsible Government could turn their back on that. No wonder the Conservative party espouses competitive tendering and market testing as an essential part of government—it is the best thing for the taxpayer. The Devonport bid was cheaper than the Rosyth bid, which is why we won and why the west country is tonight grateful to DML for the way in which it conducted itself.
  It is also recognised in the west country, however, that only a Conservative Government would have delivered Trident to the west country. That fact is now abundantly clear—the Labour Front-Bench team has made its position clear. Despite the burdens on the taxpayer and the costs, the Labour Front-Bench team would have buried their heads in the sand and given the contract to Rosyth. There is news in that, but what has shocked the people of the west country is the revelation that the Liberals' official party policy—despite what the party was saying locally—was to give the contract to Rosyth. That has devastated people in the west country, who will not forget or forgive that.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: When did the hon. Gentleman first learn that that was our policy?
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention because I have in my hand a statement that he made yesterday when he spoke on Radio 4. It was a shock because we in the west country have been bamboozled by the Liberals, who gave us the impression that they were fighting for Devonport as that was their official party policy. However, that is not so; yesterday, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "Well, I have made a judgment in my capacity as the Defence Spokesman for my Party…I believe that the two yard solution which the Secretary of State has argued for can best be exemplified by sending the nuclear submarines to Rosyth and the surface ones to Devonport."
  That statement has gone down like a lead balloon in the west country. The Liberal Democrats tried to pull the wool over our eyes; they have been exposed for what they are—a party that has turned its back on the west country.
  The outcome of the important contract race is that Devonport has won because it offered the best value for money for the taxpayer. We have seen that competitive tendering works—it has saved money for the Navy and the taxpayer. The Government have clearly committed themselves to a two-yard solution. They have proved that that is their intention; they have given assurances and provided the people of Rosyth with a package of compensation of work and hope which the people of the west country support.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: If nothing else, the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has confirmed that today's decision was not a financial or strategic but a political decision. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton chose to interpret it in that light.
  If hon. Members had any doubt about the winners and losers of today's events, they needed only to look at the south coast Members of Parliament who were celebrating opposite the House of Commons earlier today. No doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland would use the phrase that he used in a Scottish newspaper this morning—a phrase that I would never use—and describe them as the "bloody English". I think that they are merely politicians celebrating a victory. The Secretary of State for Scotland should be present now to explain why he was defeated.
  We are trying to find a guaranteed future for Rosyth. Various parties will have different ways of finding that future. The question before us today is whether the announcement from the Secretary of State for Defence will provide that guaranteed future. The information that we have received and our experience of Government guarantees and commitments show that the answer must be no.
  As has been said, there is a difference between allocated work and guaranteed work, although—given the loose words that he used on television earlier this evening—that difference seems to have escaped the Secretary of State for Scotland. Even on the basis of the allocated work, I suggest that the reduction in personnel at Rosyth will be much greater than the estimate of 450 that we have been given.
  The Secretary of State for Defence gave us some new figures this evening. He said that, over and above the 18 major surface ships that he had mentioned this afternoon, a further 49 surface ships would be allocated. A quick calculation suggests that 67 surface ships in the next 13
  524
  years will be allocated, which is fewer than the 79 that the Secretary of State for Defence mentioned in his statement this afternoon.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson rose——
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman sits down, I might be generous to him later in my speech, which is more than can be said for the Secretary of State for Defence who refused to give way to me earlier.
  As I was saying—if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) would care to listen—those figures would result in a total of 67 surface ships in the next 13 years being allocated—fewer than the 79 which have been turned around by Rosyth in the past 10 years. In addition, there are the five nuclear refits that Rosyth completed in the same period, using the huge dedicated work force that it has for this purpose. That seems to show that the estimated 450 job losses on such a programme—even if we accept that the allocated programme will go to Rosyth—is a serious underestimate.
  What is the competitive position that Rosyth will face? As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said—he has most successfully made the point—Devonport will still be in a position to compete for the unallocated surface work. Due to the overheads which Devonport will be able to carry on a range of activities, the price that it submits will inevitably be lower than that of any other shipyard or dockyard. The chances are that its tender price will become the prevailing price which Rosyth will be expected to meet for the allocated work. That will place Rosyth at an unfair disadvantage to Devonport in a competitive market.
  Dr. Godman: The fate that the hon. Gentleman is spelling out for Rosyth is precisely the fate suffered by the employees of Scott Lithgow. At the time the then Mr. George Younger made all sorts of promises, but there was no way in which Scott Lithgow could compete with Vickers of Barrow-in-Furness in terms of submarine building. That sent Scott Lithgow down the Clyde.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. In an interview in The Herald yesteday, Mr. Alan Smith said:
  "If they get the submarines, they will be strong enough to do us down … Yes, they will be in a position to knock us for six, fighting vigorously to get the surface ships as well. It would spell the beginning of the end for Rosyth."
  Rosyth will face unfair competition over the unallocated sections of the surface work, which will affect the prevailing price even of the allocated section. It comes ill from the Secretary of State for Defence to claim the benefits of competition for the nuclear refit when his announcement this afternoon ends such competition.
  What guarantees were given by Lord Younger in his statement in The Times earlier this month? Once again the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East put his finger on it when he pointed out that the Secretary of State for Defence was reduced to partially quoting the man who was his predecessor as the Secretary of State for Scotland. The context of the letter makes quite clear the extent of the breach of faith that Lord Younger was fearful of—he campaigned and sold nuclear bases to Scotland on the argument that the refitting work would come to Rosyth. Clearly that is a substantial breach of faith.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene later in my speech if he has a little patience.
  However the extent of bad faith went further than that. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) quoted what Lord Younger said in the "Scottish Lobby" programme broadcast on 19 June and pointed out that Lord Younger had already anticipated exactly the solution that was announced and defended by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Defence this afternoon, and said that it would be inadequate and would not guarantee the future of Rosyth.
  Later in the same interview in "Scottish Lobby", he was asked whether it was just a personal breach of faith, a personal commitment that he made in the mid 1980s when he had responsibility, or whether he interpreted it as a breach of faith by the entire Government. The interviewer said:
  "So it seemed then a terrible breach of faith—I mean you yourself have talked about the concern that you personally would feel about this. But it would be a terrible breach of faith by the government wouldn't it?"
  The answer from Lord Younger was:
  "Well, I think it would. If you take it we were persuaded in Scotland that there were the jobs and we therefore agreed to go along with all the other bits of it. I think to let it be fixed up in Scotland and then take away some of the jobs is something you should only do with a very very overwhelmingly good reason".
  Perhaps Lord Younger found his overwhelmingly good reason when the Secretary of State for Scotland phoned him up earlier today and said, "I am in the most incredible political fix. I cannot persuade my Cabinet colleagues, but can I rely on you to keep quiet and pretend that the breach of faith is not as extensive as you have indicated in your letter in The Times?"
  It was a breach of faith by the Government and not just by Lord Younger. That is why it is incredible that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be heralding his announcement as an extraordinary victory for his lobbying power in Parliament. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene now because I am about to deal with the point that I am sure he is going to make.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about guarantees and allocations. What guarantees could he give the people of Rosyth on the basis of the first paragraph of his own party's defence manifesto which said:
  "The SNP is committed to a non-nuclear Scotland. An independent Scotland will immediately withdraw from the UK's Trident programme and will order nuclear weapons and installations off our soil. There will be no place for scandalously expensive, impractical and ultimately useless nuclear weapons."?
  What guarantee could the hon. Gentleman give the people of Rosyth when that was his manifesto?
  Mr. Salmond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that free publicity for the Scottish National party manifesto. was coming to exactly that point.
  Rosyth in an independent Scottish context would be a non-nuclear first-line base. An independent Scotland—[Interruption.] Believe it or not, Denmark, which is a similar maritime country to Scotland, has naval bases and dockyards. The difference between Rosyth in a British context and a Scottish context is that in a Scottish context it now is the No. 1 nuclear base and dockyard on the east
  526
  coast of Scotland whereas in a British context it is a second division, B-league base and is now subject to a very uncertain future indeed.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman cares to examine the budget proposals that we put forward for an independent Scotland, he will see that, because of the distortion and concentration of defence expenditure in the south and south-west of England, it is possible to reduce the overall defence budget in Scotland and still maintain around the current expenditure on procurement because Scotland lost out so badly in the last United Kingdom defence budget.
  Turning to the point I was about to make on the general election campaign, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the then Secretary of State for Defence, was arguing with me in a radio interview. "Where would Rosyth be," said the right hon. Gentleman, "if it were not able to bid and compete for nuclear refitting work in an independent have a guaranteed future in an independent Scotland.
  What there surely should be agreement on tonight is that there is no guaranteed future for Rosyth in a British context. So next time we hear Conservative and Labour politicians arguing in general election campaigns in Scotland that the only way to secure the future of defence bases in Scotland is to maintain the union it will get the horse laugh from the Scottish people that it richly deserves after this afternoon's betrayal.
  In conclusion, the Secretary of State for Defence said earlier today that he will find——
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has heard me say that I am not giving way, so perhaps he will resume his seat.
  The Secretary of State for Defence told us earlier this afternoon that there would be an amicable solution to the question of whether the rotting nuclear hulks would be left at Rosyth or exported down south. The only amicable solution to that question is that these nuclear hulks should be removed immediately because no one in Scotland will accept a future for Rosyth as an elephants graveyard for nuclear submarines.
  8.36 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me a few moments in this valuable Adjournment debate. I claim a right to two or three minutes on behalf of my constituents who provide perhaps 15 per cent. of the work force of Devonport dockyard. May I say how wonderful it is that we have won the contract on merit. The quality of the work in Devon is superb and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) who represents the constituency next to mine has pointed out, there is no question but that the best dockyard has won the contract.
  Of course it must be very difficult to have lost and perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), in whose constituency the Devonport dockyard resides, is not in the Chamber and

  527
  has not spoken. The reason is that he is in direct conflict with his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench. Winning must be a somewhat bitter pill for him, just as the debate tonight is a bitter pill for Liberal Democrat Members, who have said such different things in the west country from the public pronouncements of their defence spokesman tonight and yesterday.
  I should like to thank the Secretary of State for Defence on behalf of my constituents in Bere Alston, Bere Ferrows, Were Quay and the Yelverton area, who provide such a high proportion of the work force in the Devonport dockyard. I should also like to thank the Secretary of State for Defence on behalf of those at the Appledore shipyard in the northern part of my constituency who also assist in the repair work at the dockyard, and to whom other work is sometimes given.
  We have a fine sea-going and shipbuilding tradition, as hon. Members with whom we have been linked in Scotland know, and I want to make it clear it gives me no pleasure or happiness to learn of the unhappiness at Rosyth. It is sad when one cannot win everything. But it is not a case of winner takes all, because the Secretary of State for Defence has managed such an equitable division with only 450 job losses in Rosyth. That is remarkable. Many months ago, a trades union leader from Rosyth told me that he was expecting at least 2,000 or 3,000 over the next four years. Now a Conservative Secretary of State has managed to prove him wrong, and I for one rejoice in that.
  This was a wonderful decision by the Secretary of State. On behalf of my constituents who work in Devonport I want to pay tribute to every west country Conservative colleague, regardless of whether he or she had a direct involvement. They have all banded together and fought for this superb decision.
  I extend my good wishes to Rosyth; I am delighted that only 450 job losses are forecast and that a full programme of work lies ahead for that magnificent yard.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. John McFall: The guilty man is the Secretary of State for Scotland. Throughout the 1980s, we had nothing but promises, promises, promises, but where have those promises led us? Between 1980 and 1993, promises were freely made every year. I remind the House of the promise in 1984 given by the Minister responsible for the armed services, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley):
  "I should like to take this opportunity to announce that we have now settled where the refitting of the Trident submarines will be carried out; it will be at Rosyth."—[Official Report, 29 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 1122.]
  The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), said, as reported in The Herald on 10 December 1985:
  "Commercial management of the Royal Dockyards offers the prospect of attracting even more work than there is at present, and it is the Government's intention to push ahead with this advancement. There is a brighter future for Rosyth."
  The right hon. Gentleman should tell that to the workers of Rosyth and of Scotland on this day.
  Rosyth has been betrayed—a fact of which I was clearly reminded when I received a phone call on Monday morning from the press to tell me that there had been a full nuclear alert on Sunday at the Faslane nuclear base. We
  528
  were reminded of the consequences of having such bases in our constituencies. There is a price to be paid—a certain tension in the air. We have to live with those consequences.
  At my surgery a couple of weeks ago, someone who works at the base came to tell me that he had leukaemia. I do not for a minute say that the base is responsible, but health and safety issues in a nuclear environment have to be faced by those of us who represent areas such as Faslane. If we bear such responsibilities, surely we should also have the benefits of the maintenance of Trident. This simple argument has been put to me and my fellow Members time and again.
  As for the strategic considerations, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) pointed out. Rosyth is but a gentle two-hour drive from Faslane. On strategic grounds alone, therefore, the nuclear submarine refitting should be located at Rosyth.
  I keep in regular touch with the workers at the base. Many of them tell me that they might prefer not to be working there, but it is at least a job: it keeps body and soul together. It keeps families intact. This decision, therefore, is taking effect against a background of the employment black spots in our constituencies. Rosyth will become an employment black hole after this.
  In his short and eloquent speech, the Secretary of State talked about Rosyth but did not mention jobs or training. The defence industries are being run down, and we will lose jobs. In Coulport, a total of 800 jobs have been and are being lost. This is a continuing problem, yet the Secretary of State made no mention of alternative employment possibilities or of arms conversion possibly providing other jobs. The Government have simply failed to tackle that—a severe omission.
  Rosyth trains half the engineering apprentices in Scotland; in other words, it provides the skills base for Scotland. People gain a fine training and in Faslane, whose apprentices I also know. This whole skills base is to be lost as a result of the loss of Rosyth, and the Government have nothing to offer us——
  Mr. George Kynoch rose——
  Mr. McFall: The Government have trumpeted the idea that competition prevails, although there is surely also a strategic dimension. In a letter to The Times on 11 June, the Earl of Perth said that, by giving the work to Devonport, we are putting all our eggs in one basket, and that makes no strategic sense. Competition alone will not serve the primary strategic interest.
  As for the Navy's own preference, I believe that a number of dirty tricks have been played. It is claimed that the Navy prefers Devonport, but I spoke to senior naval ratings only a few weeks ago in my constituency. They described the differences, as they saw them, between the south of England, with its urban chaos, and Scotland, with its free open spaces and cleaner environment—much better to live in, in short. Hon. Members should not believe the stories about the Navy wanting Devonport. Dirty tricks have been played in this campaign.
  One of the dirtiest tricks was the sleazy remark of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who sidled up to the Dispatch Box earlier. He has been mute on this issue all day, but he is the one who should resign. He claims that, in a covert conversation that cannot be corroborated, Lord Younger agreed with the Government's decision today. Let us remind ourselves what Lord Younger said:

  529
  "One of the most powerful arguments deployed is that there would be many jobs for Scotland associated with operating and maintaining submarines."
  Translated, that means that the submarines are operated from Faslane; the maintenance of the submarines is undertaken at Rosyth. Lord Younger cannot go back on those words. They hang like a millstone around his neck and around the neck of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The message of today's exercise is: never trust a Tory. A Tory promise is a broken promise, and it causes heartbreak for thousands of people in Scotland. That is the message of this despicable exercise. The Secretary of State for Scotland should be ashamed of himself for his lack of spunk. He should remove himself immediately from the Cabinet.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Coming as I do from the west country, I too welcome today's decision. It was the longest, most sustained campaign in which I have ever been involved. In it, we put to the Government the position that seemed to me from the outset militarily and economically right and in every way unanswerable.
  But one can take nothing for granted in this life, and it was clear that political considerations might have impinged on the Government to make them, as some thought, turn their face away from what they would otherwise have done. I never thought for a moment that that was likely. I am sure that the Government have been greatly aided in coming to their conclusions by the sustained support of Conservative Members who had carefully considered the problem, and who believed that this option was military and economically right, and right for the west country.
  The last thing that I would want to do on such an occasion is meddle in other people's grief. If I represented Rosyth, I too would be disappointed. I assure Opposition Members that I will not meddle in their grief—except perhaps to mention that there is something faintly ludicrous about a party which has for so long espoused the unilateralist cause, a party in which so many members once trumpeted their membership of CND, now queuing up to call for the maintenance of nuclear weapons in nuclear-free zones. It is bizarre.
  However, I will give them this much credit: at least they were prepared to engage in bare-faced, brazen cheek with a straight face. Coming as I do from the west country, I know beyond doubt that no one in the west country ever thought that a Labour Government would safeguard their position in regard to defence; no one looks to a Labour Government to support them in that regard.
  If people do not look to a Labour Government for the defence of their country, they perhaps believe—in a misguided way—that the Liberal Democrats can be entrusted with it, and that they are sound when it comes to the maintenance of Trident. In assessing that view—even before the "Today" programme yesterday, with which I shall deal shortly—they might just have wanted to consider the record. Liberal Democrat Members told people in the west country that they too were doing all they could to ensure that the Tories did not backslide on their commitments to Devonport.
  As long ago as 1983, the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) appeared on a CND platform in Hyde Park. The right hon. Member for Yeovil said:
  530
  "Let us be clear…this country does not need Cruise, and NATO does not need Cruise."
  Just a year later, he featured in a CND launch in the Morning Star, along with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who was then the parliamentary Labour CND chairman, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). The occasion was a CND campaign against Trident, which the three declared to be an £11 billion white elephant.
  Just to make his position clear, the right hon. Member for Yeovil described Trident as
  "a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible".
  In 1988, when asked in the context of his own election campaign for the leadership of his party, "What about Trident then, Paddy?", he replied:
  "No! For Polaris at the last election, read Trident at the next".
  Let me bring the House right up to date—although there is never anything really up to date about the Liberal Democrats. Anyone who has ever tried to canvass in a road after a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate has gone up it knows that they do not just change their policies from year to year, from election to election or from constituency to constituency; they change their policies from house to house. It is a case of "What do you want to hear? What would you like us to promise? We will promise it to you."
  Only two years ago—for the Liberal Democrats, that is a very long time—they drew up a policy document entitled "Reshaping Europe". It was produced in 1990. It stated:
  "Last year, we called for 'a gradual reduction in spending as a proportion of national wealth'. In the changed circumstances of today we propose a bolder objective. We call for a reduction of at least 50 per cent. in real terms in UK defence expenditure, phased in over the remainder of she century'''.
  It went on to explain those proposals, just in case people could not understand. It stated that its proposals envisaged
  "'reductions in the size of the army from 160,000 to 73,000 … and in the Royal Navy of around half of its present size (to 24 frigates, 13 attack submarines and 2 aircraft carriers)'"—
  and just for good measure,
  "the RAF being cut 'by 12 from the present 31 combat aircraft squadrons'."
  The idea that a party that could propose such a programme and policy would be capable of throwing its weight meaningfully behind a proper option for Trident is ludicrous; but, understandably, people can be beguiled. In recent weeks, in the west country, the Liberal Democrats made the same point time and again, particularly in the council elections. It would be almost incredible, were it not true. They said that the Tories were a bit soft on Trident, and were not putting their back into the campaign. They were saying that that last push to give the Trident contract to Devonport needed Liberal Democrat support—as the rope supports the hanging man, I suppose.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)—who came to a press conference last week and told the people assembled there that tha Trident contract would definitely go to Rosyth—did what they were entitled to do, and exercised their right to campaign on behalf of constituency interests?

  531
  If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the official position of the Liberal Democrats, let me tell him that I have checked my diary and discovered that, on 25 February. I went to a meeting in the office of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who will wind up the debate. I was one of a number of Members of Parliament campaigning for the two-yard option—that is, for nuclear submarines at Rosyth and surface work at Devonport. All the hon. Gentleman had to do was ask his hon. Friend about our policy, if he was in any doubt.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. and learned Gentleman cuts such a ludicrous figure that I would like to think that, when I am campaigning in Teignbridge at the next election, he will speak on my platform. All I fear is his support. I do not know what his social diary may include; I do not know at what times he meets my hon. Friends. I am talking about the lies, lies, lies and more lies told by the Liberal Democrats during the county council elections, about how we would be soft on Trident and they would make the final push.
  Mr. Harris: Was the information given by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) conveyed by the Liberal Democrats in Cornwall and Devon during the county council elections? I did not observe any such information; I suspect that they sang a very different tune.
  Mr. Nicholls: The tune is the one that I have mentioned. Yesterday, the cat was finally let out of the bag. Under some stiff questioning on the "Today" programme, the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke; perhaps he was so cynical by then that he did not need stiff questioning to produce the information, but I shall do him the credit of believing that it was stiff questioning.
  He said:
  "Well, I have made a judgement in my capacity as the Defence spokesman for my Party … I believe that the two yard solution … can best be exemplified by sending the nuclear submarines to Rosyth and the surface ones to Devonport".
  In an earlier intervention, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was just arguing a constituency point.
  Mr. Campbell: No.
  Mr. Nicholls: It is not just that the impression has changed from one house to another; it has changed in the course of a debate. I could understand if the hon. and learned Gentleman was campaigning because Rosyth was in his own electoral yard, but he was saying that it was the official policy of his party to behave in this way. He was throwing the weight of his party behind an option that would have deprived the west country of what it needs.
  The one thing that comes out of this business is that the Liberal Democrats have betrayed the people they claimed to champion. In all the celebrations tonight, the one thing that the Navy in Plymouth and the west country needs to know is that, when it came down to it, it was betrayed by the one party that pretended that it could be relied upon. I use this term in an entirely parliamentary way: it is utterly contemptible, and the people of the west country swill not forget.
  9 pm
  Mrs. Irene Adams: I am grateful for a few minutes to speak in the debate tonight; I know how many hon. Members are waiting to get in.
  Rosyth is not in or adjacent to my constituency; it is a good few miles from it. However, such is the nature of the work at Rosyth that many jobs throughout Scotland are dependent on it.
  Today, when this announcement was made, I asked the Secretary of State if he could tell us how he had come up with the figure of 450 redundancies at Rosyth. It never fails to surprise me how glibly the Government roll a figure of 450 job losses off their tongues. They seem to forget that the families of 450 people have seen their future go down the river tonight. That does not seem to mean a great deal to them.
  If, when they were looking at Rosyth, they had given some thought to defence diversification, we might not be concerned about the jobs at Rosyth, but might be looking at putting jobs and training in other places.
  My constituency will lose jobs because of the announcement today. I did not get an answer when I asked what the ancillary job loss would be. However, since it is estimated that 18,500 jobs in Scotland are dependent upon Rosyth, and therefore that there are five times as many jobs outside as inside the dockyard, I can only assume that there will be five times as many job losses throughout Scotland as there will be in the dockyard itself. That will mean a job loss of almost 2,500 in Scotland, not 450—and 450 is a very conservative estimate in anybody's book. It is estimated that of those 18,500 jobs there are probably about 1,800 in the vicinity of my constituency.
  I have to tell the House once again that, since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, my constituency has lost an unbelievable 89 per cent. of its manufacturing base. I know that that is difficult for the House to believe, and it is a sorry situation. It will certainly not be helped by the announcement that was made today, as Babcock Thorn, the major employer at Rosyth, is also the major employer in my constituency. Therefore, we will undoubtedly be affected once more by the job losses announced today.
  The Government made no mention of training when they mentioned the redundancies. Again, Rosyth is the biggest trainer of apprentices in Scotland, and training jobs have gone completely down the river as well.
  I recently visited Rolls-Royce in my constituency. It, too, is a major employer, and it has announced 450 job losses in my constituency in the last few weeks. Rolls-Royce tells me that in the last five years it has trained 36 apprentices. The last six will complete their training this year, after which the company has no plans to train any further apprentices. I have to assume that, if 450 jobs are going at Rosyth, there are a good number of apprenticeships going as well.
  I can see no hope for my constituejcy in the announcement today for manufacturing jobs. All we have had in their place have been very low-paid service jobs, where people are working for between £1·20 and £2·40 an hour, with no future.
  I am not greatly impressed by the promises that the Government have made today, because they have made promises in the past. We heard about Lord Younger's promise to keep Rosyth going for Scotland. In 1979, the same Lord Younger, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, promised, when the first major job losses came

  533
  in the west of Scotland at the Talbot car plant at Linwood, in the constituency of Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, that he would see what he could do to make sure that manufacturing stayed in that area.
  He promised that, even if we had to make rubber ducks, manufacturing would continue at Linwood. Not even a rubber duck is made at Linwood now. On that vast site, where once 5,000 people were employed, there are a few retail jobs and a few service jobs, but absolutely no manufacturing jobs.
  I can only assume that the same would be the case at Rosyth. Once more, we have empty promises, with nothing to back them up. It will be death by strangulation, as it has been in my constituency.
  We have not suffered a major job loss in one blow; we have suffered death by a thousand cuts. That is exactly what is going to happen at Rosyth. We have not had the guarantees that we require from the Government. They continually tell us that we will get the job allocations, but I would be most grateful if, in winding up, the Minister will tell us that he guarantees that there will be only 450 job losses at Rosyth.
  Dr. Godman: May I point out to my hon. Friend that, at the time of Scott Lithgow being pushed out of submarine building, similar promises were made by the same Ministers—Lord Younger and his then right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). Those promises were utterly worthless. I share my hon. Friend's deep concern about the real number of jobs that will be lost.
  Mrs. Adams: The promises have been worthless. They were worthless at Linwood and for the coal industry. They are worthless at Rosyth, too. I should be grateful if the Minister could point to promises that were not worthless.
  I ask the Government again about the number of redundancies—450—which I still question. What consultations have the Government had, and what estimates have they made of the ancillary job losses, both in the west of Scotland and throughout Scotland?
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I intend to deal specifically with the calumny that has been put about by Opposition Members that in some way the Government have attempted to treat Rosyth unfairly. It is absolutely clear that the Government have bent over backwards to look after Rosyth and the Scottish defence industry.
  It is interesting to speculate about what would have happened if the Opposition had become the party of Government at the last general election and if one of their shipyards, as it would have been then, had come to them and said, "We can save £250 million on the refitting of the Trident submarines by using an existing dock rather than building a new one." I am sure that they, as the party of Government, would have checked the figures for both Devonport and Rosyth. If Opposition Members believe that they would have thrown away £64 million of savings by awarding the contract to Rosyth rather than to Devonport, they should say so clearly.
  What is the Government's record? At every stage, once Devonport began to bid for the contract, Devonport won against Rosyth. Did the Government immediately say, "Right, we'll go to Devonport and close the door on Rosyth.'? No, they kept going back to Rosyth and saying,
  534
  "Look at the figures again." Even when it became clear that Devonport would win the contract, I am absolutely certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends made every effort to ensure that work would go to Rosyth, so as to keep the two-base option that the Opposition talk about. However, they did not listen to what was said about that in today's statement.
  I shall give a small example, for the benefit of those who are going on BBC television at Rosyth at the moment regarding their belief that this is a political fix on behalf of Conservative Members with constituencies in the south-west. What we said clearly to the Government was, "You can't ask for fair competition between Devonport and Rosyth and then, when Devonport wins, turn to the Scottish Office and say, 'We understand the difficulties that the Conservative party faces in Scotland, so we'll take the work away from Devonport and give it to Rosyth."'
  Hon. Members will recall that time and again before the last general election the Royal Navy told the Government that it felt that it could close one of the Royal Navy bases—not one of the dockyards but one of the bases. The Royal Navy costed that out and found that there were real savings to be made by closing the Royal Navy base at Rosyth. The same costings showed that it was not cost-effective to close Portland. The Government acted to preserve jobs at Rosyth and to maintain the Royal Navy base there.
  In order to keep to its long-term costings, the Royal Navy had to do a half closure of Portland, leaving the helicopters where they were, and save money at Portland. My constituents have paid the price of trying to look after the best interests of people in Rosyth. One has to remember that any money that is saved is saved for Scottish taxpayers as well as for English, Welsh and Northern Ireland taxpayers.
  Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman know what percentage of United Kingdom defence procurement is spent in Scotland? Does it surprise him to hear that it is well under the population's share?
  Mr. Bruce: Considerable defence spending occurs in, for example, Fife and Faslane. The hon. Gentleman likes to chop the United Kingdom into parts and to speak separately of Scotland and England and so on. It is illogical to do that in this context because in parts of the country, such as in the south-west of England, enormous numbers of people are employed in the defence industries.
  I invite the hon. Gentleman to spend his holidays in Dorset. He will discover how many Scottish accents can be heard among those living in Weymouth and Portland. Those Scots have come to work there. Indeed, I have a useful name when canvassing. All the people who live there are part and parcel of the nation's defence industries.
  The Government's proposals go to the heart of attempting to help Rosyth. The whingeing Jocks who have been sent here—not the Jocks who are back home, who are not the whingers—and who constantly try to put it about that the Government are not looking after the Scottish economy are a complete calumny and should be shown to be that.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: We can do without the sort of Scottish-English nonsense that we just heard from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr.

  535
  Bruce). Some of us, for one reason or another, have been involved with the dockyards question for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—who must be elsewhere for this part of the debate—and I were involved in the contractorisation measure, about which we had grave misgivings.
  At that time we worked equally with the work force in Devonport and Rosyth. Whenever I went to Devonport I received an extremely warm welcome. Such was the welcome for us and other Labour candidates when we visited the area that Labour won the seat. The same happened in Barrow, where the submarines about which we are talking are still being constructed.
  My constituency is not part of Fife, though it adjoins Fife region. I pay tribute to the efforts of that region and all involved there for the work that they have done in the defence of their dockyard. About 350 people in my constituency are employed there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, innumerable places across the central belt of Scotland will be affected by the Government's decision. It is not a question of 350 or so jobs. Far more than that number of people will be involved. Hi-tech jobs in Fife were created specifically because of the character of the work carried out at the dockyard.
  We are told that there will be an allocated programme, but the Secretary of State has been silent on the issue. He is not the most shrinking of violets in normal circumstances. He is not the sort of person—typical of advocates—to use one word when 10 will do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is always prepared to define and refashion what he says. But tonight his silence is deafening.
  His coyness is an admission that the Government do not know what the size of the surface fleet will be. I recall in the 1980s hapless civil servants going before the Select Committee on Defence and being asked about the size of the fleet. The conventional wisdom, according to the defence White Papers of the time, was that it was about 50. A controversy was caused when the man replied, "It is probably 42 at the moment." He was called back the following week and the figure was 38. It then came down to 32 and now it is 35 to 40. Perhaps the Minister will give us the revised standard version of that figure. I make that point because we cannot believe any of the forecasts about the size of the fleet.
  Since contractorisation, problems have been created for Rosyth and Devonport because of the changes in the profile of the fleet. There have not just been changes in the profile of the surface fleet. Half of this debate would not have been necessary had it not been for the decision of previous members of the Defence team to stop ordering SSN—strategic submarine nuclear—leaving a gap in the nuclear-powered fleet. For the benefit of the neanderthals on the Conservative Benches, there are nuclear submarines that do not carry nuclear weapons. That is what we are talking about.
  I would not be unhappy if there had been a justification for the failure to continue ordering and it had been put in an appropriate defence context. We have yet to hear that. We no longer need the SSNs. We no longer need ships sitting in the north Atlantic listening for the Soviet fleet
  536
  coming from its northern haunts. Therefore, for us to talk with any degree of certainty about the Rosyth dockyard is very dangerous.
  My next point has been alluded to, but it is worth repeating. The part of the work that is not allocated and will be up for competition may involve competition between Rosyth and Devonport. We know that Devonport has extensive wharf areas that could be used for doing bits and pieces of work. In fact, Devonport Management Ltd. is always complaining about its overheads because of the size and scale of the yard. The important point about Rosyth is that it is modern and compact and is using its space effectively. That enables the work force to move about easily when work needs to be done.
  My point is not just that DM L will have an advantage. We must realise that the people at VSEL at Barrow, where the submarines are constructed, will not turn their backs on them. At the moment, they are desperate for any work that they can get. That is why they were able to get the work on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Best of luck to them—if there is competitive tendering, to the victor the spoils. We must not kid ourselves that those companies will be standing idly by. We must not forget that Yarrow on the Clyde will be looking for work as well.
  The assurances that have been given—if we can dignify the words by that description—are worthless. In the absence of any clear strategic justification for what is happening, everything that the Government say could be subject to change tomorrow.
  This is the product of an extensive budgetary exercise. There are now savings. However, we find that there will be a saving of about £12 million on the capital budget out of a possible budget of about £240 million. The difference is 5 per cent. In revenue terms it is about £80 million out of a total budget of £3 billion. It has to be a close-run thing. Other considerations will have to be brought to bear. If there is to be only one centre for the maintenance of nuclear submarines, it seems sensible for it to be near the base from which the vessels operate. If that is the case, it must be Rosyth. There is a synergy for Devonport in these reduced circumstances. It is correct that the surface fleet can operate easily out of the southern waters. It can get into the Atlantic and to virtually any part of the globe that it wants. It is exceedingly difficult to ensure that such flexibility is available in Rosyth.
  I argued at one stage that, if the size of the nuclear fleet were big enough, we should have two bases and two sets of facilities. That was perhaps gold plating—an allegation with which people who get close to defence arguments are sometimes tarnished, and I might have been wrong. I certainly would have been prepared to advance effective, strategic arguments and enter into a proper debate. We have yet to achieve that tonight, and I look to the Minister to provide it in his reply.
  Will the Minister also state specifically what will be the size of the surface fleet of frigates and destroyers? We are not considering the small ships, which are important to Rosyth, but which could be easily dealt with in a number of other places—Yarrow, as I have mentioned, is just one such place. Plastic-bottom boats could go to Yarrow without any difficulty. Let us secure the big jobs for Rosyth to keep people in employment and guarantee its future.
  I remember the last threat to Rosyth, when many of us said that its loss to Scotland would be equivalent to the

  537
  loss of Ravenscraig. The numbers and the spin-off technologies are the same, and the assurances were given by the same people. They let us down last time and I do not doubt that they will do so again.
  9.21 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: As a Member representing a Devon constituency, I join my colleagues in welcoming today's decision in favour of Devonport. My constituency is almost 50 miles from Devonport, but despite that my constituents work in the yard.
  I wish to mention another element which has not been mentioned but which is critical to Devonport and Rosyth—the importance of the dockyards as purchasers within the local economy. For example, in Devon and Cornwall, 600 companies which employ 30,000 people are suppliers to the Devonport dockyard, so today's decision is equally important to the small business community in the south-west, who primarily supply the dockyard. They and the chambers of commerce will greatly welcome today's decision.
  In my capacity as a spokesman for the Small Business Bureau and Women into Business, I have been invited many times to speak to the small business community in Scotland. I therefore know that small businesses play an equally important role in the Rosyth area.
  We warmly welcomed today's statement about programmes for surface ships at Rosyth. Many Conservative Members, myself included, will pressure Ministers to maintain a credible and modern surface fleet, which we believe to be critical to Britain's capability as an island nation and to our integral role within NATO. I say to Opposition Members that Conservative Members will certainly welcome Ministers' efforts to ensure that Rosyth plays its full part in the commissioning of new ships for the surface fleet.
  Opposition Members have used much strong language about today's decision. I shall not challenge each of their speeches, but it is important to challenge some of the comments that have been made. The word "strategic" has been used. Although I am not a military expert, my grandfather and brother were submariners so I am aware of the importance of the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend made this afternoon. My right hon. And learned Friend said:
  "But, more important, we are not able to accept any proposal which would deprive the Trident submarines of a dedicated emergency docking facility for significant periods; which would mean that the single nuclear refuelling facility was used for all our submarines, so exposing us to unacceptable risks in the event of an incident or other difficulty; and which, indeed, is untested from a technical and safety point of view."
  It is extremely important that in peacetime, following an incident at sea involving a submarine, especially a nuclear submarine, we can deal effectively in dock with such problems. Having heard a first-hand account of a fire in a submarine, I am only too well aware of the way in which such incidents affect submariners.
  I want to express support for the remarks of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). During the 1980s—before I became a Member of Parliament—I spoke for Peace through NATO. I spent many a long evening in many a village hall up and down the country and abroad debating the case for the NATO alliance. I
  538
  argued for the nuclear deterrent on behalf of NATO. I spoke in support of the independent deterrent, which the Conservative party has protected.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Where were the Opposition Members then?
  Mrs. Browning: They were sitting on the other side of the platform, arguing the unilateralists' case, along with friends who are perhaps better known nationally for their association with Greenham Common.
  It is a bit rich to hear now from Opposition Members a long argument about how defence industry jobs will be lost. We are all concerned about that matter. It is understandable that hon. Members whose constituents are affected should make their representations. However, it must be remembered that, had matters been left to Labour Members or, as has been pointed out, to Liberal Democrat Members, there would be no nuclear submarines in this country. Having a nuclear deterrent was totally against their policies.
  We have heard much cant about how this decision was taken by the Government. Why has there been such a sudden change of heart on the part of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members? Why have they suddenly embraced the nuclear deterrent? It is not because they share the conviction of Conservative Members about the stability of our role in NATO; it is for party political, opportunist reasons only.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge quoted the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I have no need to quote the right hon. Gentleman, as indelibly printed on my memory is an occasion in the winter of 1983, just after the right hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament. He sat on one side of the platform of a village hall, arguing the unilateralists' case, while my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, (Lady Olga Maitland)—I regret that my hon. Friend is not present in the House—sat with me arguing the NATO case. Having been a Member of Parliament for only a year, I regard it as really quite something to hear such cant and hypocrisy.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I should like to take up the challenge that was thrown down by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) and by several others, including the Secretary of State for Defence, when they asked how we could defend the case for refitting Trident, a nuclear submarine with nuclear weapons, at Rosyth although we did not support Trident. The fact that I shall not do so at this stage—no doubt another opportunity will arise—is based not on any fear but on respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who will undoubtedly deliver a resounding winding-up speech on our behalf.
  Let me get to the substance of the question about where the Trident submarine should be maintained. I did not seek out Lords who had moved from ministerial positions to high directorships in banks for the purpose of finding out what people thought about this decision and of assessing the statement of the Secretary of State for Defence; I took the trouble to phone people who work in Rosyth and who live in my constituency of Falkirk, East.
  The naval base trade unions have put out a statement in which they
  "deplore the loss of work taken from Rosyth to try to secure the future employment of some Tory MPs."

  539
  Union representatives met the base commander, Captain York, at 3.30 pm today and were amazed to find out that they would have to wait two weeks or more to see in print the logic of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Cabinet. They are shocked at the fact that they cannot debate immediately the facts that brought about the demise of some of the work that they would have had. They spoke to me in particular about the likely impact on the resources base of the naval yard.
  The naval base currently supplies Babcock Thorn with support equipment for submarine refits. Rosyth naval yard is a minor war vessel operating base, I am told. There is concern that that may not continue. I do not know whether it was a joke or a straight statement, but the union representatives said that they thought that there was a danger that the Secretary of State would turn it into a mini-minor war vessel operating base. I think that the word "mini" is used in the sense of "much shrunken" rather than as a reference to the old car.
  The support service at the naval base must be safeguarded. Today, we heard only about the 450 jobs that are to go immediately because of today's decision, but the existing naval yard rundown plan already means the loss of 1,500 jobs in the next four to five years. We were still told that today's statement implied no other Ministry of Defence job losses. The rundown will leave only 1,400 jobs at the base, and I believe that they should be guaranteed—a word that seems to frighten the Secretary of State for Defence so much at the moment. Will the Minister of State for Defence Procurement guarantee that the 1,400 jobs will still exist at the end of the planned rundown?
  Alternatively, will the support equipments that are presently sourced at Rosyth for Babcock Thorn be sourced at Devonport in future? If they are to be sourced at Devonport, will further jobs he transferred there from Rosyth? The workers have not been told; perhaps the Secretary of State forgot to mention it.
  Mike Gardiner, who lives at Bo'ness in my constituency, is the staff spokesman at Rosyth naval yard. He is also the vice-chair of the Whitley council for the employees. Like Mike and his members, I hold no brief for the anger levelled at the work force or the community of the Devonport area. This is not a nationalist question; it is about Conservative incompetence and lack of feeling for the people who have given their lives to the naval yards in both areas.
  The workers and the House know who betrayed the people of Rosyth, and there is no doubt that it is a betrayal. The Secretaries of State for Scotland the right hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) and for Defence the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) perpetrated what is a betrayal, given the promises made by previous Administrations. The Secretaries of State were supported by what I would call the bleating of the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). I have labelled them the "Scottish Tory Members' own job club"—hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.
  I have every confidence that the work force at Rosyth will join the management in fighting for the yard's future. In the 100-day consultation period, I am sure that we shall fight alongside them. Even after the consultation period,
  540
  regardless of the outcome, the work force and management will fight on the ground to try to win orders and secure their futures, but with no thanks to the Conservative Government.
  I remind the House that we have not yet reached 1994. The Government originally guaranteed the workers at Ravenscraig that the plant would survive at least until then. Scottish voters will remember that betrayal and this betrayal. I suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Defence give Lord Younger a ring to see whether there are any jobs left in the City.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: The House may be wondering why a Member representing a London suburb is intervening in the heavy gunfire between Scotland and the west country. I do so because I had the privilege to serve in the Royal Navy for nine years, between 1961 and 1970. I was primarily a Devonport man but I visited all the nation's ports, including Rosyth.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not take it as a sign of disrespect if I say that I did not find Rosyth an especially attractive place, although we were always well received there after a hard exercise in the North sea. I had many good times there, and we were always pleased to arrive. Our favourite trick was to hold a sweepstake on the ship's bridge to see what time we would go under the Forth bridge; the captain always seemed to win. We were always made welcome at Rosyth, and the ships always got fixed.
  The Navy found that Devonport was, by and large, a more agreeable place. It had better weather, for a start, and was more popular among those on the lower deck and in the wardroom. I had the misfortune to be on board HMS Eagle when she ran aground in Plymouth sound in 1969. I was impressed by the ability of Devonport dockyard to dock the ship promptly and undertake repairs.
  As users of Devonport's services, we also experienced the frustration of the dockyard's unionisation and its demarcation disputes. The overmanning led to the Labour Government reducing the dockyard's manpower by 4,000 between 1965 and 1969 and announcing a review in 1969 which resulted in a further 5,000 job losses. That puts today's announcement into perspective. I do not envy my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the difficult decision that he has had to make. I consider that, in the changing circumstances, he is not bound by any announcement made in 1984.
  The decision is right for two fundamental reasons. The first is the location of Devonport in the western approaches, which gives it a central place in history. It is the port from which Drake set sail against the armada, and it is unthinkable for the Royal Navy to have any other strategic centre. Secondly, the decision is right on commercial grounds. Devonport was chosen because it represents the best value, and savings for the taxpayer, whom I represent. Yet we can still keep Rosyth open with a loss of only 450 jobs.
  I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and I have never in my life heard more hostages being given to fortune. First, he said that the announcement was divisive. If holding, such a competition is divisive, so be it—let us have more divisiveness. The hon. Gentleman implied that

  541
  he would not have held a competition, so the savings of £250 million that have been found would not have been realised. The hon. Gentleman said that simply because he opposes competition and the benefits that it brings.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, as a Scottish Member, was untenable. It would have been a darn sight more untenable if my right hon. Friend, as a Scottish Member, had favoured Rosyth and ignored the relative merits. Finally, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said that the Government were putting political dogma before the security of the nation. Coming as it does from the party that opposed the deployment of cruise missiles at the height of the cold war, that is nothing but cant, humbug and hypocrisy. I urge the House to support the Government.
  9.36 pm
  Dr. John Reid: I must tell the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that we would have considered it untenable if the decision had been made purely on the basis of the nationality or the constituency interest of the Secretary of State, whether he had favoured Scotland or England, Rosyth or Devonport. The decision should have been based on strategic issues. It certainly should not have been based on the criterion used by the hon. Member for Croydon, South, with his naval experience—the fact that the climate in Devon is warmer. On that basis, we should have given the refitting work to the Bahamas. But the hon. Gentleman's argument was typical of the sort of speech that we have heard tonight.
  Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing us this emergency debate. It is the first since 13 April 1988, and the first that you have granted in your illustrious capacity as Speaker. We recognise that you granted the debate not for any parochial or regional reason, nor for any narrow political reason, but because of the importance of the issue.
  Lest there be any doubt in anyone's mind, let me make it plain both personally and on behalf of the Labour party that we pay tribute to the workers, management and representatives of both yards. I bear no ill will towards the workers of Devonport, any more than we did towards the workers of Swan Hunter when we had half a day's debate on that subject less than a month ago. We bear no ill will towards any workers fighting against the decline and decay of their manufacturing industries. We blame no group of workers anywhere in Britain for trying to secure their future and that of their families. That is one reason why we argued for a two-yard solution.
  However, I bear ill will towards a Government who make what should be a strategic defence decision by turning community against community in this country, when all our communities are suffering the decline and decay of our traditional industries. One of the local Members of Parliament, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), made that decline clear in his speech—and what a commentary that was on the miserable failure of the Government's economic and industrial policies. The Government's attempt to achieve vital strategic defence decisions purely on the basis of the cost-cutting mentality of the bazaar has led to the dereliction of their duty as strategically oriented defence Ministers on behalf of the United Kingdom. The accusation tonight is not of parochialism or nationalism—it is that the Secretary of State for Defence is guilty of
  542
  a lack of strategic defence analysis, a misunderstanding of the competitive policy that he said he wishes to foster, months of dithering and delay which have led to distress for all parties in this competitive procedure, and years of deception.
  Our position was made clear at least a year before the Government discovered what they now call the two-yard solution. We made it clear that, as long as the Trident system is a vital part of our security posture, it is simply crazy to have only one facility in Great Britain where it can be refitted, repaired and serviced. Therefore, both Rosyth and Devonport should have been kept open to retain the capacity to handle Trident in addition to nuclear-powered submarines and conventional ones. The decision is another example of a Treasury-driven policy.
  Mr. Rifkind rose——
  Dr. Reid: I have only 10 minutes, so I will not give way unless the Secretary of State withdraws the wrong but presumably not malicious allegation that he made against me earlier.
  Mr. Rifkind: I accept that the hon. Gentleman called for the cancellation of one of the Trident boats, which would have had major implications. The reason why I wanted to intervene is that he said that the Labour party believed that both Rosyth and Devonport should he provided with facilities for the refitting of Trident submarines. Has he worked out what the cost of that would be? Is he suggesting that a Labour Government would find hundreds of millions of pounds to ensure that the second yard had the expensive Trident refitting requirements?
  Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State managed to make two mistakes in his intervention. First, I did not call for the cancellation of the fourth Trident. Secondly, I did not say "facilities"—I said "capability". [ Interruption.] He should check that in Hansard. It is an important distinction.
  If the Secretary of State wants me to answer the question whether it is sometimes in the interests of the strategic defence of the country to subsidise a project, rather than always taking a decision on the cost-cutting basis of the bazaar, the answer is yes. Indeed, in his relatively short time in the Ministry of Defence he may not have found that the £20 billion that is spent every year is a subsidy because it is direct expenditure from the public purse and by the taxpayer. That is our complaint.
  The Secretary of State told us that he gave us guarantees at some stage. What is the guarantee that the same thing will not happen to Rosyth as happened to the guarantees over Ravenscraig? What is the guarantee that the same will not happen to the frigate fleet of about 50, which became about 40 and is now about 30? Indeed, the Secretary of State, who is engrossed in briefing his colleague, did not use the word "guarantee". He is a Queen's Counsel and is praised as one of the brightest minds at the Scottish Bar. Yet he told us that he does not see any difference between "allocation" and "guarantee". If he does not understand the difference in plain English between allocating work and giving a guarantee that the work will eventually end up in a yard, he should not be at the Scottish Bar or in charge of the Ministry of Defence because he will end up giving a guarantee of everything to everyone.

  543
  I will not refer to the promises that have been made tonight because other hon. Members have already referred to them. When we talk about those promises, let me make it clear that the Secretary of State cannot distance himself from the statements that have been made and the pledges given by the Government to the Rosyth workers over the past eight years. If those promises and pledges had been given to the workers at Devonport by his predecessors in the name of Her Majesty's Government, we would be taking the Government to task in exactly the same way. It is one long record.
  While I am talking about promises and changing of minds, it comes difficult for us to hear the previous Secretary of State for Scotland accusing people in the Chamber of changing their minds on steel, Trident or anything else. He is the man who pledged his undying commitment to Scottish devolution and sold out for 30 pieces of Cabinet silver and his first foot up the greasy pole. None of us will take lectures from the Secretary of State about changing our minds.
  The Secretary of State treated us to a bizarre spectacle tonight. He cannot hide behind the Ministry of Defence or the chiefs of staff. He cannot huddle in his bunker in the Ministry of Defence because the man who was sitting in the Scottish Office as Secretary of State for Scotland was the very man who stood before us tonight and broke every one of the pledges made by the former Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers to people in Rosyth and Scotland. He acquiesced in their statements. Indeed, he revelled in the assurances given to the workers of Rosyth. Today he has led the way in the betrayal of every one of those promises. For that, he will not be forgotten in Scotland.
  I finish not with Scotland but with Devonport. Tonight I warn the workers at Devonport in the same way as we warned the workers at Swan Hunter and others warned workers throughout the country, including Ravenscraig. They should not take a simple opportunistic decision based on short-term political criteria from a Tory Government as a guarantee of their future. It will be as shaky in the long run as the promises that have been made tonight to the workers at Rosyth.
  Especially in defence policy, the Government have no strategic analysis. They have no commitment to promises given. They have no friends. They have one aim, and it is not the defence of Britain—it is the survival of those who sit on the Government Front Bench. We shall not forget that, and in the long run the workers at Devonport will not forget it either.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Madam Speaker, we welcome your decision to grant the debate tonight. [Interruption.] We welcome it even more now that we have heard the Opposition's case. It is to spend more taxpayers' money, to give away the whole Trident submarine programme according to all the policies that the Labour party has outlined for years, and to produce a piece of complete rubbish as an argument and a case tonight.
  We must begin by emphasising that we are debating a truly national issue. The issue is the right location for our
  544
  submarine refitting. One would not have thought that we were discussing a national issue from listening to the case that the Opposition deployed tonight.
  It is astonishing how conspicuous by their absence have been the Opposition Members who for months have come to my office and to the Chamber arguing for the nuclear refitting facility to be placed at Devonport. For example, where is the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)? Where are the other Liberal Members who campaigned throughout the west country in the county council elections such as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)? On the Labour Benches, where are such characters as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)? It seems that they have all been sent home for supper. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is herel The hon. Member for Devonport is conspicuous by his silence.
  Tonight we have been treated to a parochial Scottish wake which was not justified. The lugubrious pessimism, breast beating and lamentations have not proved justified. The Opposition have not given credit to my right hon. and learned Friend for battling for and winning a 12-year allocated programme for surface ship refits for Rosyth. It will result in 18 major warships and 49 minor war vessels being refitted at Rosyth, including, we hope, the Ark Royal and the carriers, which will be available to Rosyth for the allocated programme.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Aitken: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as he has not participated in the debate.
  What we have heard from the Opposition is the stunning argument that——
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is in retreat—earlier, at least we were given "allocate", although we did not get "guarantee". Now all that we are receiving is hope. Let us have a guarantee.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman must not play silly semantic games. I am coming to the bizarre proposition about guarantees and allocations. I shall now relate my remarks to the hon. Gentleman's speech, as he opened the debate. We heard sound, fury and synthetic indignation signifying nothing. Leaving to one side—in the immortal phrase of the Leader of the Opposition—the fact that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was one of the principal signatories of the 1987 early-day motion urging the Government to cancel Trident in the light of the changing international climate, leaving aside the fact that only three days ago he moved an amendment in the defence debate in the House to negotiate away our Trident submarines as part of disarmament negotiations, and leaving aside the fact that only two days ago he was calling for a ten-year allocated programme for Rosyth, the hon. Gentleman has given no credit to the fact that the Government have given it a 12-year allocated programme.
  I shall now turn to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who speaks for one part of the Liberal party—the part that was not campaigning in the west country at the county council elections. He said, with an old-fashioned Gladstonian air, as if God had put an ace up his sleeve, that what Lord

  545
  Younger had said was a crucial factor in the debate. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was well answered by two salvoes from the Conservative Benches.
  One salvo came from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who had spoken to Lord Younger earlier in the day and had received the clear impression that he was well satisfied by the fact that a 12-year allocated programme has gone to Rosyth. The second salvo came from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallic) who made it clear that times had changed since then. That is true—times have changed with the ending of the cold war, the collapse of the Berlin wall and the dissolving of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. Naturally, we now require fewer nuclear submarines.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister knows that Lord Younger wrote his letter to The Times less than a fortnight ago. Is the Minister saying that Lord Younger's position, as represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland, entirely contradicts what he wrote in The Times?
  Mr. Aitken: We shall see what Lord Younger has to say. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was correct.
  I shall now turn to the great semantic argument on "contractual", "allocated" and "guaranteed"—the conjuring trick that the Opposition have tried to perpetrate tonight. I shall steer them through the semantic fog. I shall first explain the contractual relationship that we expect to establish with I)ML in Devonport. We intend to place a contract at Devonport for the construction of the upgraded nuclear facilities. The word "contract" applies to that construction programme, not to individual refits in that instance.
  We shall handle refits in the allocated programme at both dockyards by inviting a single tender for each refit against a Ministry of Defence specification. On the basis of that tender, we shall negotiate a fixed and fair price. That applies both to the surface ship refits at Rosyth and the nuclear refits at Devonport. The allocated programme means that no other yard is invited to tender. It is wrong for the Opposition to cast doubt on the genuineness of our proposal to allocate work to Rosyth. As my right hon. Friend said, we have many years' experience of running allocated programmes and an "allocation" means just that—work is allocated in advance to a dockyard and is not available to be done elsewhere.
  Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Aitken: No, I shall not.
  Of course we have to ensure that the system is not abused and that we do not give the dockyard a blank cheque. That is what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for, but we have some concern for value for the taxpayers' money.
  Dr. Reid: We are not talking about the price; we are talking about the numbers. The reality is that the core group has been cut over the past decade. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that? It is an entirely different matter from the price.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my right hon. Friend's statement. He said that 18 major war vessels and 49 minor war vessels will be in the programme.
  546
  In the past, Rosyth has always been satisfied with its allocated programme. We believe that it will he even more satisfied with its larger allocated programme over the next 12 years.
  I now turn to some of the other speeches. I owe it to the House to pick up the speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the leader of the Scottish National party. I have never heard a more hypocritical performance. He was arguing for the refit facility to go to Rosyth, but what does the Scottish National party manifesto say? It says:
  "The SNP is committed to a non-nuclear Scotland. An independent Scotland will immediately withdraw from the United Kingdom's Trident Programme and will order nuclear weapons and installations off our soil.".
  Mr. Welsh: Has the Minister secretly joined CND? He has near enough created a nuclear-free Fife by this decision. He is taking more nuclear weapons from Scotland than Labour ever did. He has taken the money down to England and left Scotland with the unemployment.
  Mr. Aitken: If that was supposed to be a clarification of the Scottish National party policy, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to it.
  One or two serious points were made in the debate. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) asked about the operational reasons for keeping refitting at Rosyth because of its proximity to the Clyde submarine base. Of course we considered this, but the operational considerations had to be balanced by the fact that some £64 million of taxpayers' money could be saved by the Devonport decision, and that was the reason which tipped the balance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) savaged the Liberal party in his admirable speech and made it clear that time and again the Liberals have said one thing in one part of the country and something else in another.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) gave the Government considerable credit for striving to help Rosyth. The Government have made great strides in trying to soften the blow of not winning the Trident refitting contract—a 12-year refitting programme keeping redundancies down to 450.
  Mr. Connarty: I am willing to rescue the Minister who is obviously sinking fast. Will he consider the question that was asked through me by the convener of the naval yard staff union? What guarantees are given for the 1,400 jobs and the supply of equipment for some of the refits, even if they go to Devonport? They now come from Rosyth to Babcock Thorn.
  Mr. Aitken: No Minister can give guarantees from the Dispatch Box. We are making our best estimates on the redundancy figures. What we believe, based on the business plans of the companies themselves, is that we have made a credible estimate and all over the country people who had been predicting many thousands of redundancies have been proved quite wrong by the potential redundancies that are likely to be suffered.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) also asked about the Rosyth naval base. I can tell him that there is no connection between jobs in the royal dockyard and in the naval base at Rosyth.

  547
  In conclusion, it was inevitable that the Government's decision on where to locate the refitting of Britain's nuclear submarines would be difficult and tough and inevitably would be unpopular in whichever region did not get the Trident contract. The communities in Rosyth and Devonport had a great deal at stake and the dockyard management companies fought their corners hard in many representations to Ministers and in a great many Adjournment debates in recent months.
  The Government's view was that our duty was clear. It was to rise above the local and regional lobbies, and to make a decision that was strategically right in the interests of the defence of the realm, operationally right for the Royal Navy, economically right in the interests of the taxpayer—I remind the House that about £64 million has been saved by the decision—and, above all, right in the national interest. We believe that we have got the decision right, and we commend it to the House.
  Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 281.

  Division No. 307]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

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

  Allen, Graham

  Denham, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dixon. Don

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Banks. Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Barron, Kevin

  Enright, Derek

  Battle, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bell, Stuart

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Foulkes, George

  Benton, Joe

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galbraith, Sam

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Galloway, George

  Betts, Clive

  Gapes, Mike

  Blair, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Boateng, Paul

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gordon, Mildred

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

  Gould, Bryan

  Burden, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Caborn, Richard

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gunnell, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hardy, Peter

  Cann, Jamie

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Hattersley. Rt Hon Roy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hinchliffe. David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Connarty, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  548

  Illsley, Eric

  Pike, Peter L.

  Ingram, Adam

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jowell, Tessa

  Randall, Stuart

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Richardson, Jo

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ruddock, Joan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Salmond, Alex

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Clare

  McFall, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McLeish, Henry

  Skinner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  McWilliam, John

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

  Mahon, Alice

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Thompson. Jack (Wansbeck)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Milburn, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Vaz, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wallace, James

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watson, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mudie, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Hara, Edward

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. John Spellar and

  Patchett, Terry

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

  Pickthall, Colin

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Alexander, Richard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Booth, Hartley

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Ashby, David

  Bowis, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkins, Robert

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baldry, Tony

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Bates, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burt, Alistair

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butler, Peter

  549

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hicks, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Gdford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North

  Cran, James

  Norfolk)

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

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evennett, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Faber, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lightbown, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Luff, Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maclean, David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Madel, David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hague, William

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  550

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Needham, Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Nelson, Anthony

  Squire. Robin (Hornchurch)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Allan

  Norris, Steve

  Streeter, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend. E)

  Pawsey, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thomason, Roy

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waller, Gary

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Ward, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wolf son, Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Trident Refit (Scottish Economy)

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 28th June, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to registration and declaration of Members' financial interests not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister, unless previously disposed of, shall lapse one and a half hours after it has been made; and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Waste Incinerator (Gateshead)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10.14 pm
  Ms Joyce Quin: I am glad to have this opportunity—[Interruption.]—to raise a matter that is of great concern to my constituents—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber leave quietly please?
  Ms Quin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I wish to raise a matter that is of great concern to my constituents in Gateshead, East and also to constituents in neighbouring constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) who is listening to the debate. It concerns the approval that was given recently by the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, who is now the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the building of a clinical waste incinerator in Wardley in my constituency.
  I should make it clear from the outset that what has particularly angered my constituents is the fact that the Secretary of State overruled the recommendations of his own inspector, who after a long, detailed and full public inquiry recommended that the proposed incinerator should not be allowed to go ahead. Astonishingly, the Secretary of State for the Environment decided that he knew better than his own inspector and went ahead and recommended approval of the project—a decision that has outraged public opinion not only in Gateshead, East but, I believe, throughout the north-east of England.
  While giving the background to the debate, I ought to point out that there are many reasons why public opinion in Gateshead, East is opposed to the building of any incinerator. First, and perhaps most emotively, a previous incinerator in the town was linked with the emergence during the 1980s of a child leukaemia cancer cluster, based on the Gateshead area. There were between 10 and 20 times the number of cases of childhood leukaemia than one would expect in an area with a population the size of Gateshead.
  Secondly, there have been other sources of pollution in the Gateshead area, which have led to people being very worried indeed about the possibility of this incinerator being built. Another incinerator gave rise to problems in the past. There were also other sources of pollution, such as the Monkton coke works in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, and the coal crushing plant at Wardley, which is very close to the site of the proposed incinerator.
  The people of Gateshead, East were looking forward to a cleaner, brighter future. The last thing they wanted was yet another source of pollution to be planted on their doorstep in the way that is threatened with this incinerator.
  There is a third reason why the siting of this incinerator causes such worry to my constituents: that the health of people in Gateshead is already, on average, worse than the health of our citizens nationally. If the Minister has had time to look at the annual report of the Gateshead public health inspector, he will see, for example, that perinatal
  552
  mortality rates in Gateshead are significantly higher than the national average. There is also a lower life expectancy for most categories of people in the constituency.
  For all those reasons, the latest incinerator proposal has caused widespread public alarm. Indeed, about 16,000 people registered their opposition to this incinerator—a staggering figure.
  The Gateshead metropolitan borough council, in tune with its residents, refused planning permission. That is why the matter then went to the Department of the Environment and the Secretary of State. I salute the efforts of the local council, the council leader, Councillor George Gill, and the local councillors who represent the wards most immediately affected by the proposal.
  Both I, my parliamentary colleagues, the Member of the European Parliament for the area and the local newspapers, which have played an important role in this affair, have added their weight to the campaign against the incinerator. We find the Secretary of State's decision astonishing on several grounds.
  First, it is astonishing that the Secretary of State should have decided in this case to overrule the recommendations of his inspector. I accept that that is unusual rather than unheard of. I have examined information that the Department sent me of cases where the Secretary of State has overruled the planning recommendations of inspectors. I have not found one example of a clinical waste incinerator being dealt with in that way. I am amazed that the Secretary of State should think that he has more technical expertise than his inspector, in having the confidence to overrule his inspector's recommendations in a full and detailed report.
  We find the Secretary of State's decision astonishing, because he dismisses our fears about other forms of economic development being deterred by the existence of the incinerator. During the inquiry, the Food and Drink Federation stated:
  "The siting of a clinical waste incinerator at Follingsby Lane would render the proposed industrial site completely unsuitable for any operation in respect of food and drink, whether processing, distribution or storage, because of the perceived risks to the safety of food."
  Anything that undermines confidence from the point of view of economic development is worrying in an area such as Gateshead, and in Tyneside generally. Throughout the 1980s, the northern region had the highest level of unemployment in mainland Britain. Tyneside's situation has been, and continues to be, very bad, particularly bearing in mind recent events at Swan Hunter. All such factors must be taken into account by the Minister.
  We also feel that the Secretary of State has not examined the full situation, and has an incomplete grasp of the facts. In his reasons for overruling the inspector, the Secretary of State referred to the regional nature of the clinical waste incinerator. He went on to recognise that I had sent him a letter stating that the Northern regional health authority favoured a number of smaller incinerators rather than one big one. But to my astonishment, he said that, while that might be the case, it did not alter his opinion.
  Surely he should have checked on precisely what the situation was in relation to the Northern regional health authority, rather than simply look at a press clipping that I sent to him. He should have conducted a thorough investigation, involving the Northern regional health authority and the region as a whole, in the context of

  553
  clinical waste. He would then have been in a better position to reach a full decision. It seems from an examination of that part of the Secretary of State's report that he has not acted reasonably—a point that I hope will be taken on board in any appeal that may be launched against the decision. It is an aspect which worries us greatly.
  We accept that incineration is necessary, but the building of what is supposed to be a regional facility should be approved only after a proper regional assessment and a democratic decision has been taken in the region. It is depressing to think that the Secretary of State has ignored the advice of the Select Committee that looked into the whole issue of the disposal of toxic and clinical waste. It said that a proper regional strategy should be worked out for each region before decisions were made.
  The only reason why the site in Gateshead has been chosen is that the company that wants to build the facility owns the site. That cannot be a sufficient reason to allow such a proposal to go ahead, and I hope that the Minister will address that point in his reply tonight.
  When a similar incinerator was to be built in Alberta in Canada, there was a full democratic process, at the end of which local authorities in parts of the state expressed a desire to house the incinerator. The area chosen was away from high-density population.
  The Minister may say that Canada has vast open spaces that we in the north-east of England do not have. Even so, the Alberta example was reinforced by the chair of the European Parliament Environment Committee, who said in evidence that he thought that such a facility should be sited in a wooded area away from high-density human and animal population, and distant from arable land. There are such sites in the north-east, and we believe that the Secretary of State for the Environment and his colleagues have done nothing to try to identify suitable sites that would have the support of the general public.
  We are worried that the Secretary of State seems to be glib about the emissions from this incinerating facility. We want Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to adopt the highest standards possible in such an area, but we are worried that, despite supposedly strict controls, emission problems are only discovered afterwards, as with the Bolsover incinerator. The television programme "World in Action" did an exposé on the problems in Bolsover and brought them to the attention of the public. Only after that were tighter controls put in place. Given the history of incineration, I am sure that the Minister will understand how concerned we are in Gateshead about the possibility of dangerous emissions being released into a densely populated area.
  We are outraged that the Secretary of State has failed to understand the extent of public hostility to the scheme. The Government say that they are a listening Government, but they have failed to listen to 16,000 people in the Gateshead area, never mind the Members of Parliament, the Member of the European Parliament, the council, residents associations and the local press. They have turned a deaf ear to all who have objected to the scheme. Is it any wonder that people in Gateshead feel bitter as a result?
  One of our local newspapers, the Evening Chronicle, said:
  "The Government ruling seems to turn logic on its head and now we have a Government Minister flying in the face of
  554
  a planning inspector's decision in a move which has stunned many people on Tyneside. Would the Environment Secretary have come to the same controversial conclusion if the incinerator plan had been in a Tory area in the south of England?"
  The Minister will not be surprised that people have reacted in that way.
  People are also suspicious of the fact that the Government seem to have more in common with the privatised management of Northumbrian Water than with the people of Gateshead. We believe that the Government should be listening to the people and not to vested interests which might want to build a facility simply because they own the land.
  For all those reasons, we feel strongly that the Department of the Environment should look again at this issue and, perhaps at the end of an appeal process, decide that the people have right on their side and that their case should be supported.
  I believe that the Department of the Environment should commit itself to undertaking a study of incineration and how it should be dealt with in the north of England. It should then embark on a genuine consultation procedure to carry the people with it, rather than work against them. I implore the Minister to think again about this highly damaging and possibly dangerous proposal and realise that what has happened so far has caused public outrage, not only in Gateshead, East but throughout the north-east of England.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate and support my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) on the fight that she has put up for her constituents. This incinerator is on the border of her constituency and my constituency at Wardley. The people in that area have already had to live with the pollution emitted by the Monkton coking works, and now that the coking works has closed, they have emissions from this incinerator thrust upon them.
  The previous Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Home Secretary, made this decision. He decided to ignore Gateshead council and South Tyneside council who objected to the planning permission, and he decided to ignore his own inspector and the people in the area. It is disgraceful that, in spite of all the objections, the Government continue to go along with this plan.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) is here; he has a particular interest because of Gateshead authority and because the proposed incinerator would be close to his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) is also present because of his interest in the region's problems.
  I implore the Minister to ask the new Secretary of State for the Environment to reconsider the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East made. We were promised consultation, and an inquiry, and were told that an area examination of incinerators would be conducted before a decision was made. I implore the Minister to take this back to the new Secretary of State and let him reconsider this planning permission.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)

  555
  have raised issues of understandable concern to their constituents and I welcome the opportunity to respond. Some of the hon. Lady's comments were a little wide of the mark, and I shall deal with them in detail.
  The debate brings together policy on waste, planning policies and the specific planning decision that is the cause of the hon. Lady's concern. May I deal with our policy on waste? We are a complex society. We produce much waste at home, at work and from industry. Some of the waste that we produce requires specialist treatment, such as waste from hospitals. Overall, our waste management policies seek, wherever possible, to ensure the reduction, re-use or recycling of household and commercial waste.
  Large quantities of waste that we produce from our homes, businesses and industry are capable of being reused or recycled. We recognise, though, that, however successful we are in promoting recycling, we will not eradicate waste. What we will do is to reduce the proportion of waste that has to be disposed of. As a society, we shall continue to produce large quantities of waste, for which some form of final disposal, either landfill or incineration, will be the only economic and environmentally friendly option.
  The vast bulk of waste for final disposal in this country goes to landfill. Some 150 million tonnes of household, commercial and industrial waste is generated each year, about 85 per cent. of which goes to the 3,000 or so licensed landfill sites throughout the country. Incineration currently accounts for about 4 per cent. of our controlled waste, which is dealt with at about 200 existing licensed incinerators around the country. Incinerators are used to deal with a variety of waste ranging from household waste and sewage sludge to chemical and, as in this instance, clinical waste.
  I appreciate that plans to site a waste incineration plant can lead to considerable concerns among local residents. It is wholly understandable that local people should want to be reassured about the impact of such a plant on their neighbourhood. Alas, concerns about incineration plants are often founded more on perceptions of the less efficient operations of the past than on the high technology of the present, with extremely tight regulatory standards firmly endorsed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
  The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, an independent body of experts including many leading academics, recently published a report dealing with the incineration of waste and, because of public concerns about some older plants incinerating chemical wastes, it reviewed evidence about the possible health effects of such plants before they were either closed or modified.
  The commission concluded that not one of the independent studies found any significant effects on people's health. It concluded that, although there are some uncertainties about some older plants, they are not relevant to the future use of incineration because emission levels in some older plants were far higher than will ever be allowed in the future. All the evidence shows that incinerators make only small contributions to national emissions of most pollutants. Far larger quantities of pollutants are emitted by industry and transport. I appreciate that there are concerns about incineration. The royal commission points out, however, that incineration is particularly suitable for disposal of clinical waste.
  556
  Landfill and incineration are both vital components of our nation's waste management strategy. The stringent standards introduced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will ensure that neither landfill nor incineration should lead to pollution of our environment or harm to our health. Clearly, in a complex society such as ours, contentious and controversial planning proposals are bound to arise from time to time. Planning decisions should not be arbitrary; they should be considered against objective criteria. Development plans provide the basis for such objective consideration.
  Mr. John McWilliam: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable to keep the concentrations of chlorofluorocarbons down, as these are extremely dangerous? That is what my hon. Friend was arguing about.
  Mr. Baldry: Two years ago, we amended the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to require planning decisions to accord with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. This has been widely welcomed as giving greater guidance and certainty for local authorities and local people. As I shall explain in a moment, they have to come up with a waste development plan.
  A plan-led system can work effectively only if the development plans are both comprehensive and up-to-date. We expect most local authorities to have up-to-date local plans by 1996. Gateshead borough council is among those local authorities that we expect to adopt their development plans well before that date.
  Provision for waste disposal facilities should also be planned at a strategic level. That is why waste regulation authorities are required, under the Environmental Protection Act, to draw up separate waste disposal plans which consider the need for waste facilities within their areas and the technical aspects of possible methods of treatment and disposal.
  In metropolitan areas such as Gateshead, such waste disposal plans will need to be prepared jointly by the joint committee or authority which carries out the waste regulation function on behalf of the districts, so that the needs of the whole area can be considered. In this instance, that is the Tyne and Wear waste regulation authority. These arrangements, taken together, provide the local and strategic contexts within which planning decisions for waste facilities can be taken.
  As we learn more about our environment and the balance that needs to be maintained between our activities and the earth's ecosystem, we recognise the need to maintain at the highest level the environmental and health standards to be achieved by our industries. This applies to the waste management industry as much as to any other industry. We are in the process of setting in place an enhanced waste management licensing system under the Environmental Protection Act. This will enable waste regulation authorities more effectively to control waste disposal operations, from the point at which they are no more than a gleam in the eye to the point at which they are no longer considered to have the potential to cause pollution or harm. We are determined that there shall be tough standards for landfill and tough standards for incineration.
  Incineration standards are stringent, as are those for landfill. The new system of integrated pollution control

  557
  introduced under the Environmental Protection Act covers larger incineration plants of all types. The incineration of specific types of waste and all incinerators rated at I tonne an hour or more are controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP.
  Operators of incinerators are required to obtain, in addition to planning permission, an HMIP authorisation which lays down conditions for the operation of the plant, including limits on emissions. The conditions are designed to ensure the use of the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost, to prevent the release of prescribed substances, or, where 100 per cent. prevention is not practicable, to minimise any possible releases and render harmless any substances that might be released. Those incinerators that are much smaller and not controlled by HMIP are almost all controlled by local authorities.
  District councils have broadly the same powers as the inspectorate. The waste regulation authorities are responsible for controlling other aspects of the incineration operation.
  The usual means of disposing of waste from hospitals and other care premises has for many years been incinerators located within many of our hospitals. Substantial investment is needed to improve the performance of many of these incinerators to meet regulatory standards.
  This is leading to further consideration being given to other methods of treatment, including autoclaving and microwaving, which are capable of rendering safe some types of infectious hospital waste. For many types of waste, however, incineration will remain the most appropriate disposal method. The high standards required for incinerators generally apply equally to incinerators burning clinical waste.
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 removed Crown immunity from all NHS hospitals from 1 April 1991. The operators of NHS incinerators have been given a limited period to determine whether it is cost effective to make the additional improvements needed to bring those incinerators up to acceptable standards.
  We have issued statutory guidance to the effect that only in exceptional circumstances can this upgrading of existing plant be completed after 1 October 1995. In practice, many old hospital incinerators will not be upgraded to the full standards. They are being improved simply to meet basic and interim standards and will be closed by October 1995.
  With the removal of Crown immunity and the closure of many old hospital incinerators, many hospitals are having to consider the most appropriate means of disposal for the considerable quantities of clinical waste that are produced. All these incinerators will be required to meet the stringent standards currently in force under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which are rigorously enforced by HMIP.
  That leads me on to the specific planning application. As the hon. Lady has explained, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 25 May that he had decided to allow an
  558
  appeal by Northumbrian Water plc for a clinical waste incinerator at the former Felling sewage treatment works at Wardley.
  The appeal raised a number of complex issues relating to the planning and pollution control systems as a whole, as well as concerns about the environmental impact of the plant. My right hon. and learned Friend's decision was contrary to the recommendations of the inquiry inspector. The case is effectively still sub judice, being within the six-week statutory challenge period. The House will appreciate, therefore, that I am limited in what I am able to say about the specific decision.
  The hon. Lady suggested that the clinical incinerator is not wanted by the Northern regional health authority. Let us be clear—if the Northern regional health authority would rather have a number of smaller incinerators instead of a single incinerator for clinical waste, that is a decision for the authority. It does not affect the Secretary of State's view that the appeal proposal is a possible solution to the disposal of clinical waste in the region, and the Secretary of State does not consider that it is premature for him to determine this appeal at the present time.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State explained his reasons for allowing the appeal in his decision letter. That decision letter is, of course, a public document. In that decision, it is made clear that the Secretary of State believes that the pollution control issues associated with this proposal are capable of being satisfactorily addressed through the authorisation process operated by HMIP.
  The Secretary of State agreed with the inquiry inspector that, as an industrial development, the incinerator would not conflict with development plan policies for the area. He also considered it in the light of specific criteria in the plan for special industry, and concluded that it satisfied those criteria and was in accordance with the plan.
  The permission sets out no fewer than 24 stringent planning conditions that will have to be met. I do not have time now to set them out but I shall ensure that a copy is placed in the Library.
  The hon. Lady drew attention to evidence published in research studies in the late 1980s and presented to the inquiry which suggested that Gateshead was the centre of a cluster of childhood leukaemia. I understand this has been linked, anecdotally, to a number of operations—coke works, a municipal incinerator, a hospital incinerator and a power station—all of which have now closed. The evidence presented to the inquiry on leukaemia clusters was fully considered by the inspector and the Secretary of State before it was concluded that an appropriate plant could be built to meet the standards which would be required by HMIP.
  Having received outline planning permission—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Home Relocation
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the tax treatment of bridging loan finance costs incurred during home relocation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's policy is that the tax treatment of bridging loan finance costs incurred during home relocation should be subject to the usual tax rules, as well as those in clause 76 and schedule 5 of the current Finance (No. 2) Bill.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the tax treatment of capital depreciation costs incurred during home relocation where either an employer or a relocation company purchases the employee's property at its current market value.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's policy on capital depreciation costs on relocation, which are assumed to be loss on sale payments under guarantee sale price schemes, is that they should not qualify for tax relief under the new relief for relocation costs in clause 76 and schedule 5 of the current Finance (No. 2) Bill.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names of the private security firms currently employed by his Department, the number of employees for each firm on the contract, the total value of each contract and the total value for each financial year since 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  Forward: Civil Service Catering is the only part of the Treasury currently employing private security firms. Individual contracts are arranged at local level. During 1992–93, three security firms were employed by Forward at a total cost of £122,000. Details for the current year and for earlier years are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 29 April regarding the business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport.

  Mr. Sproat
  I can find no trace of the hon. Member's letter of 29 April ever having been received within my Department. Now that the hon. Member has sent my office a copy of the letter, I shall ensure that a reply is sent to him without delay.
  238

  ITV
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement following his meeting with ITV company chairmen on whether large ITV companies will be permitted to merge with each other.

  Mr. Brooke
  The meeting was helpful. I am reflecting on the various views put to me.

  Boxing
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he received a copy of the British Medical Association's report into the risks associated with boxing; and if he proposes to set up an independent inquiry into these risks.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department obtained a copy of the report upon its publication. I do not believe that the risks associated with boxing are sufficient to justify an inquiry.

  Farm Buildings
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if it is possible to abstract from the listing of historic buildings farm houses and outbuildings which are no longer occupied or no longer serve an agricultural purpose.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. The statutory lists do not contain this information.

  Press Regulation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will publish his proposals on the regulation of the press.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government will set out their proposals on press regulation in their response to the report of the National Heritage Select Committee on privacy and media intrusion. We hope to publish this before the summer recess.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Royal Family
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers of 7 June,Official Report, columns 82–83, and of 16 June, Official Report, column 645, on which of the visits by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh the Royal Yacht and the Queen's Flight were used; and to what extent.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Aircraft of the Queen's flight were used for travel from the United Kingdom in the case of each of the visits listed. In the case of the visit to Malta, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh embarked on the royal yacht in Palermo, Italy, and continued to use it throughout the visit. In the case of the visit to France, the royal yacht was used while the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were in Bordeaux. In the case of the Duke of Edinburgh's visit to the Caribbean, the royal yacht was used throughout the visit.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his
  239
  answer of 16 June, Official Report, column 645, into what categories his Department divides the expenditure on visits by members of the royal family.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Expenditure by the Department in support of official overseas visits undertaken by members of the royal family falls into the following categories:

  (a) travel

  (b) hotel expenses

  (c) official presents and donations

  (d) salaries—additional staff

  (e) bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges

  (f) miscellaneous (insurance, reconnaissance visits partly for security purposes, and so on)

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers of 7 June,Official Report, columns 82–83, and of 16 June, Official Report, column 645, whether clothing formed part of the costs incurred by Government Departments in respect of visits by members of the royal family.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Yes.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers of 7 June,Official Report, columns 82–83 and of 16 June, Official Report, column 645, which costs of the visits made by members of the royal family were met by other Government Departments; and if he will list the Departments.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  With the exception of visits by the Duke of Kent, no costs of overseas official visits undertaken by members of the royal family during the financial year 1992–93 were met by other Government Departments except for the costs of the royal yacht, the Queen's flight and other RAF aircraft, which were met by the Ministry of Defence. The costs of the visits by the Duke of Kent to Japan and Germany as vice-chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board were met by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, columns 82–83, what was the cost to his Department of each of the visits taken by (a) the Prince and Princess of Wales, (b) Prince Edward, (c) the Princess Royal, (d) Princess Margaret, (e) the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, (f) the Duke of Kent and (g) Princess Alexandra; on which of these visits the Queen's Flight was used; which Department bore the international travel costs; and what was the involvement of the Royal Yacht.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is as follows.

  The cost to the Department of the overseas visits undertaken by the members of the Royal Family as listed is as follows:

  Country

  Date

  Cost

  £

  The Prince and Princess of Wales

  Egypt

  10–15 May

  26,600

  Korea

  2–5 November

  57,600

  Hong Kong

  5–7 November

  12,700

  France

  13–15 November

  2,400

  France

  17–19 November

  1,400

  United States of America and Mexico

  12–18 February

  22,600

  240

  Country

  Date

  Cost

  £

  Nepal

  2–6 March

  9,900

  The Prince Edward

  British Indian Ocean Territory, Brunei, Western Samoa

  2–18 October

  27,000

  The Princess Royal

  Norway, Sweden, Finland

  11–19 May

  9,400

  India

  10–15 September

  23,200

  The Princess Margaret

  The Netherlands

  23–25 June

  3,900

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  Belgium

  12–13 October

  4,700

  The Duke of Kent

  Japan

  14–23 May

  Nil

  Italy

  30 June–1 July

  6,700

  Germany

  9–10 November

  Nil

  Princess Alexandra

  United States of America

  22–25 April

  23,000

  Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada

  30 October—7 November

  35,200

  All these visits involved use of the Queen's flight/RAF aircraft and scheduled flights, except for that by the Duke of Kent to Italy, which involved only the former. The costs of the Queen's flight and other RAF aircraft are met by the Ministry of Defence. The costs of scheduled flights are met by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The royal yacht was used during the visit to Mexico by the Prince of Wales.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, columns 82–83, if he will list the official engagements on each visit by (a) the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, (b) the Prince and Princess of Wales, (c) Prince Edward and (d) the Princess Royal.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with details.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has as to the extent and source of continuing supplies of weapons to Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  An arms embargo was imposed on Somalia in January 1992 by the United Nations. We have received no reports of any violation of the embargo, but large amounts of arms undoubtedly remain in Somalia from the former regime.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the United Nations has made as to the extent of the systematic use of rape as a weapon during the disturbances in Somalia; and what is being done to bring the offenders to justice.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no reports of the systematic use of rape as a weapon in the current disturbances.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has
  241
  been made in Somalia on an area-by-area basis to reconstruct a civil society; and who is responsible for such work.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Reconstruction of a civil society is ultimately the responsibility of the Somalis themselves. As a part of this process district councils are being established in several areas with the support of UNOSOM II. Clan elders are also playing a constructive role in the process.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what disciplinary action has been taken following review of the performance of the United Nations or its associated organisations in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Secretary-General has announced an investigation into the tragic shooting of Somali demonstrators by United Nations peacekeeping forces. The investigation has yet to be completed.

  United States of America
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has further to improve diplomatic relations between the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Diplomatic relations with the United States are in excellent shape. I am pleased to say that we and the United States Administration remain in the closest contact.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 686, if he will give further details of the OECD meeting in Paris to which the report on sustainable development was presented.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom progress report to the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development was made available to delegates attending the third meeting of the environment policy committee of the OECD held in Paris on 9 to 11 June. This was one of a regular series of meetings which enables Governments of industrialised countries to exchange views on issues of environmental policy. On this occasion the agenda included a review of the follow-up to last year's Earth summit. The committee will next meet in December.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
  242

  Irish Republic (President)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates since taking office the President of the Irish Republic made visits to Northern Ireland for which facilities were made available by Her Majesty's Government; which of those visits were(a) private and (b) official; what period of notice was given to Her Majesty's Government for each private visit; when invitations were issued by Her Majesty's Government in respect of official visits; what arrangements were made for Her Majesty's Government (i) to be informed of and (ii) to approve the itinerary of each visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: President Robinson has made private visits to Northern Ireland on 16 December 1990, 2 February 1992, 22 May 1992, 6 and 7 September 1992 and 18 and 19 June 1993. The usual courtesies for a visiting Head of State have been extended to the President on each occasion and Northern Ireland Office officials have been present at all venues, apart from Whiterock college of education on 18 June 1993. The period of notice given for the visits was three days, two months, 10 days, 10 days and three weeks respectively, but, in respect of the latest visit, particulars of those participating in the West Belfast item, and of its venue, were made known only three days before the visit.

  No invitations have been extended by Her Majesty's Government apart from that to a reception given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 2 February 1992. For each visit, Irish Government officials informed HMG of the proposed itinerary, which does not require HMG's approval.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  School Milk
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she had made to the European Commission concerning future funding arrangements for the EC school milk scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  The Commission has not yet presented its detailed proposals for expenditure under the school milk scheme in 1994. When it does, our position on the matter will be determined by a thorough examination of the provisions contained therein.

  Equine Disease
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent additional precautions have been taken to protect against the importation into the United Kingdom of horses infected with equine viral arteritis from third countries.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The state veterinary service will increase the level of post-import testing of stallions imported from third countries. All those giving seropositive results will be re-exported to their country of origin.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of compliance with the procedures governing the import of equidae from Poland over the last two years.
  243
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The compliance with either Community or, in their absence, national rules in respect of the import of live animals from third countries is kept under continuous review.

  Since June 1991 a small number of horses has been re-exported to Poland following seropositive test results for EVA. The matter was taken up with the Polish veterinary authorities which were reminded of our import requirements.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence her Department has as to the number of occasions over the last five years on which measures designed to protect the United Kingdom from the importation of equine viral arteritis have not been complied with.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department has evidence of 10 occasions during the last five years when measures designed to prevent the introduction of equine viral arteritis have not been compiled with.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the protection offered under article 20(2) of EC directive 90/426/EEC in respect of equidae imported into the United Kingdom, in circumstances where it is known that a third country has failed to comply fully with the conditions set out in the directive.

  Mr. Gillian Shephard
  Article 20 of directive 90/426/EEC was revoked by directive 91/496/EEC laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries. The latter permits member states to require, as appropriate, the detention in quarantine or isolation, or the slaughter or re-export of any animal which is found to be diseased or suspected of being diseased, or which does not fully meet the import requirements laid down in Community or national import rules; or where it is established that the exporting third country has not complied with the requirements provided for in Community or national rules.

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide a breakdown of expenditure under the farm and conservation grant scheme in cash and real terms, for each financial year since the inception of the scheme in 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The breakdown requested is shown in the table.

  Grant paid under the F&CGS 1989–93 in England and Wales

  Financial year

  Cash £'000s

  (Real Terms) £'000s1

  1989–90

  6,663

  6,663

  1990–91

  26,732

  24,385

  1991–92

  35,713

  31,089

  1992–93

  32,618

  27,535

  1 Calculated using the Retail Price Index taking 1989–90 as the base year.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what purpose the farm and conservation grant scheme was established.
  244
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The farm and conservation grant scheme is designed to help farmers maintain efficient farming systems while also meeting the often heavy cost of combating pollution and conserving the countryside and its wildlife. The scheme focuses on those investments which cut costs by updating existing resources and on those which help to achieve good countryside management. A special priority of the scheme is to help farmers install and improve waste handling facilities in order to meet their obligations to minimise pollution risks.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reasons account for the decision to allow farmers under 40 years of age to qualify for an additional allowance under the farm and conservation grant scheme; and what is the amount of the additional allowance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The extra grant for young farmers—those under 40—implements a provision of EC regulation 2328/91 on agricultural structures. An additional 25 per cent. of the normal rates of grant is payable to young farmers on first improvement plans under the farm and conservation grant scheme.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if access to the farm and conservation grant is conditional on the applicant fulfilling any residential qualifications.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  So that grant is paid only to viable businesses, the farm and conservation grant scheme requires that a farm business for which grant is sought must have been operational for at least a year. In addition, farmers situated in less-favoured areas are eligible for grant aid on the regeneration of grassland using lime and/or fertiliser and for enhanced rates of grant for some other investments. Otherwise, there are no conditions relating to residence.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the farm and conservation grant for repairs and reinstatement of farm buildings encompasses farm houses and outbuildings which have been unoccupied for a six-month or longer period, but which are to be brought back into agricultural use.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is a condition of the grants available under the farm and conservation grant scheme for the repair or refurbishment of traditional farm buildings that the building for which grant is sought must be in current agricultural use and have been in use during the 12 months prior to the application being received. However, no grant aid is available for the restoration of dwellings on farms.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have for the administration of milk quotas under the new milk marketing arrangements provided for in the Agriculture Bill[Lords].

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Much of the day-to-day administration of milk quotas is currently carried out by the milk marketing boards. It would be wrong for this work to be passed on to the boards' successor bodies since it would give them access to commercially sensitive
  245
  information about the operations of their competitors. The Government intend, therefore, that from the beginning of the next quota year on 1 April 1994 the Intervention Board executive agency should assume overall responsibility for the administration of milk quotas in the United Kingdom, including those functions currently carried out by the milk marketing boards. A further announcement will be made when detailed arrangements have been finalised.

  As well as transferring responsibility for the administration of milk quotas to an independent agency, we are also considering whether any other changes are necessary in the operation of the quota system to ensure that it does not tilt the playing field to anyone's advantage. We are looking in particular at the arrangements for leasing quota between producers and we will be consulting the industry on this and other issues before deciding what amendments to make to the quota regulations.

  Livestock Imports (Poland)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import precautions were in force in respect of the import of horses and farmed livestock before September 1992; and what additional precautions were in force in respect of such imports from Poland.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Imports of horses and farmed livestock were subject to harmonised Community or, in their absence, national rules. Such import conditions differed according to species and the animal health status of the country of origin. Among other things, such conditions included pre-export or post-import testing and isolation, as appropriate, and, in all cases, that consignments were accompanied by a health certificate signed by an official veterinarian of the exporting country confirming that the animals fully complied with our import requirements.

  From 1 July 1992 imports of live animals were also subject to veterinary checks in accordance with the provisions of Council directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC. In view of the safeguards provided, it was not considered to be necessary to take any special precautions in relation to such imports from Poland.

ENVIRONMENT

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) of 11 June,Official Report, column 357, if he will place in the Library (a) copies of the communications from the Swedish and Danish Environment Ministers on THORP and (b) copies of the information on the Paris Commission.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is not normal practice to place in the Library of the House confidential correspondence with foreign Governments. I have placed in the Library the two draft Parcom recommendations requested, together with the final recommendation.
  246

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the preferred option for the disposal of radioactive spent fuel from advanced gas-cooled reactors, as between reprocessing and dry storage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is for the owners of spent fuel to decide on safety, technical and economic grounds whether to reprocess spent fuel from advanced gas-cooled reactors or place it in dry storage.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for homeless households in temporary accommodation in England and Wales.

  Sir George Young
  The latest available estimate for the number of homeless households living in temporary accommodation relates to 31 March and appears in table 4(d) of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act 1985: England. Statistics for the first quarter of 1993", a copy of which is in the Library.

  For information about Wales, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of the cost to local authorities of placing homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  The most recent year for which information is available is 1990–91, when it is estimated that English local authorities' revenue expenditure, defined as net current expenditure, on bed and breakfast and similar accommodation was £66·632 million.

  Housing Completions
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the housing completion figures in(a) 1987 and (b)

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of housebuilding completions for England and Great Britain are shown in the publication "Housing and Construction Statistics". Figures for 1987 are in tables 6.1(a) and 6.1(d) of the 1981 to 1991 annual edition; and provisional figures for 1992 are in tables 1.2(a) and 1.2(d) of the December quarter 1992 edition—issue No. 52. Copies of this publication are in the Library.

  Gipsy Sites
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to extend the period of consultation on his draft advisory circular on gipsy sites and planning to the end of October 1993 to take account of the local authority holiday season and the absence of gipsies from their normal habitats in July and August.

  Mr. Curry
  Our policy is to allow a reasonable time for interested parties to express their views. In order to clarify
  247
  gipsies' position in the planning system, it is important that the guidance is issued as soon as possible. I do not therefore propose to extend the two-month consultation period beyond the end of July.

  District Councils
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each district council with no overall political control(a) the total population, (b) the total capital budget for 1993–94 and (c) the total revenue budget for 1993–94

  Mr. Baldry
  I have arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the selection of a chief executive for the Urban Regeneration Agency.

  Mr. Gummer
  Lord Walker of Worcester, as chairman-designate of the URA, has selected Mr. David Taylor, currently the managing director of AMEC Developments Ltd., to be the agency's first chief executive. Mr. Taylor has been chosen in open competition from a field of 178 applicants. He will bring to the agency a wealth of experience in regeneration gained during his private sector career. Subject to enactment of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill, he will be appointed chief executive by the agency when established later this year.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he is making for the issue of supplementary credit approvals to local authorities in England in respect of ERDF grants in 1993–94.

  Mr. Curry
  Supplementary credit approvals will be issued quarterly for ERDF expenditure defrayed on approved projects for which local authorities have submitted grant claims. In addition, temporary increases in authorities' aggregate credit limits will be available on request to assist the financing of expenditure on approved ERDF projects in the period before supplementary credit approvals are received. Local authorities in England are being advised by letter today of these arrangements.

  Building Management Businesses
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in selling the Building Management Business.

  Mr. Curry
  I hope to exchange contracts with purchasers of the Building Management Businesses shortly. We are proceeding with individual sales as negotiations are completed. Parliamentary approval of new expenditure to enable the vendor to complete the sales will be sought in a winter supplementary estimate for the sale of PSA Services businesses vote—class VII vote 13. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.
  248

  Ground Maintenance Work, Chester
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has decided to take against the city of Chester following the notice served on the authority on 1 April, under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988, in respect of ground maintenance work.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the response which the City of Chester has made to the notice served on 1 April 1993, and has today given a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 in respect of ground maintenance work. The direction places restrictions on the extent to which the authority can undertake ground maintenance work without the express agreement of the Secretary of State.

HEALTH

  Boxers
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many boxers have been killed, or brain damaged by boxing in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested concerning deaths for the period 1987 to 1991 in England and Wales is routinely published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in its monitor entitled "Fatal accidents occurring during sporting and leisure activities" series DH4; information for 1992 is not yet available.

  During this period, one death was registered in 1987.

  The information requested for the incidence of brain damage is not available centrally.

  District Nurses
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of whole-time equivalent district nurses in 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest information shows that in England, at 30 September 1991, there were 9,900 whole-time equivalent district nurses.

  At October 1992, there were 9,120 whole-time equivalent practice nurses.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department will establish a joint research programme with the Medical Research Council into the physical origins and treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Sackville
  A task force on myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME—is preparing a report which should provide a basis for considering a more structured approach to research in this field. Both the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Department will continue to receive and evaluate individual proposals for ME research.

  Thames Region Provider Units
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many neuroscience, plastic surgery, cancer, cardiac and renal beds there are in each provider unit in the Thames region;
  249
  (2) if she will list the provider units in the Thames region at present in respect of each of paediatric, neuroscience, plastic surgery, cancer, cardiac and renal services; and the number of beds in each unit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of ordinary and day case patients treated by specialty for districts and trusts have been published in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England 1991–92", a copy of which is available in the Library. Information on beds by specialty is not available centrally.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children have been identified as requiring speech therapy in the city of Newcastle in each of the last five years;

  (2) what has been the average waiting time, for each of the last five years, for children in the city of Newcastle waiting to receive speech therapy from the point at which speech therapy is recommended to the date at which treatment commences.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, for children aged 15 or under in Newcastle, 670 new episodes of speech therapy treatment were started in 1989–90, 695 in 1990–91 and 727 in 1991–92.

  Residential Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to initiate a public inquiry into the running of all residential care establishments in connection with allegations of maltreatment of children in such establishments; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  None. Since 1991, there have been a number of inquiries into specific aspects of residential child care. Where there are specific allegations of mistreatment, the Government are always concerned to ensure that they are thoroughly investigated by the managing authorities, as laid down in procedures for child protection and that appropriate action is taken in the event of the confirmation of such allegations. We have recently established a residential child care support force whose prime purpose will be to promote improvements in the quality and delivery of the service for these young people.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the terms of reference of the support force for children's residential care.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are currently consulting on draft terms of reference which are as follows:

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

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

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

  250
  2. The Children's Residential Care Support Force will work under Department of Health auspices, and from time to time as requested, report on its programme and progress. It will work with social services and, as appropriate, other agencies by invitation in a consulting and facilitating role. The Social Services Inspectorate's advice will be available to it. It will work within the framework of the Children Act 1989 and regulations and guidance issued following that and other relevant legislation; the Warner report and Government decisions in it; and other material that may be relevant. Its remit is for a period of two years from the summer of 1993. Ministers will then review the progress made.

  I expect to be able to announce next month the membership of the support force.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how frequently in each district health authority area(a) women between the ages of 20 years and 35 years and (b) women over 35 years receive cervical smear tests.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally, but a report by the National Audit Office in 1992 found that at 31 March 1991, 46 per cent. of districts in England recalled women every five years, 39 per cent. recalled every three years and the remaining 15 per cent. recalled different women at different intervals.

  The central method of collecting information on the cervical screening programme is currently being revised, and it is intended that this information will be available from the financial year 1994–95.

  Nurse Regrading
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have been waiting five years or more to complete the appeals procedure for regrading.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to buy out nurses regrading appeals; and if she will make a statement on the situation(a) nationally and (b) in the Nottingham area.

  Mr. Sackville
  Local managers have been asked to consider the use of buy-outs where they judge such measures will be cost effective. Some appellants in the Nottingham area have accepted buy-out offers and others will be considering doing so.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), of 15 June,Official Report, column 510, if she will give the information on outstanding nurses' grading appeals by grade of nurse, including auxiliaries.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of appeals outstanding by grade at employing authority level is not available centrally. At regional level, no reliable data are currently available. The information on the number of appeals outstanding by grade at national level for England is shown in the table.

  Nurses and midwives clinical grading appeals outstanding as at 31 May 1993 England

  Grade claimed

  National level

  B

  465

  C

  214

  D

  160

  251

  Grade claimed

  National level

  E

  188

  F

  415

  G

  437

  H

  248

  I

  27

  Respiratory Distress Syndrome
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to reduce the number of new-born babies dying from respiratory distress syndrome; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: Information about the effectiveness of clinical treatments is available to doctors through professional journals and other scientific publications. The results of widespread clinical trials have been published which suggest that artificial surfactant is an effective treatment for premature babies suffering from, or at high risk of, respiratory distress syndrome. The use of this treatment has grown rapidly within the national health service, even though it only became available commercially 18 months ago.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Potatoes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many tonnes of potatoes have been supplied as aid to each region or nation in the former Yugoslavia; for what purposes they were provided; where they were sourced; what was the price per tonne paid to the growers; what was the price per tonne paid by his Department; what information he has that seed potatoes so provided were actually planted; and what further aid is contemplated in respect of the agricultural industry.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At the request of UNHCR we supplied 2,000 tonnes of seed potatoes to the Tuzla region of Bosnia in March of this year. These were provided as part of our humanitarian aid programme to the former Yugoslavia to provide a cost-effective food source for the local population during 1993. They were procured through a supplier in Scotland who obtained supplies from more than 30 growers. The price paid to the supplier, reflecting both the urgency and the requirement for export-grade super elite standard potatoes, was £140 per tonne for 1,000 tonnes of Desiree potatoes and £145 per tonne for 1,000 tonnes of Pentland Squire potatoes. In addition to the costs of purchase this price included grading, bagging, marking and certification.

  Our representatives in the former Yugoslavia have confirmed that the seed potatoes have been planted, and that the aid was well received and used. We have no plans for any further such projects at present.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the number of Somalis dependent for food aid on foreign donors.
  252
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In February the World Food Programme/Food and Agriculture Organisation crop and food supply assessment mission estimated that 200,000 tonnes of imported food aid would be required to support approximately 2·5 million Somalis in the period March to August 1993.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the number of children currently dying in Somalia from measles, dysentery, diarrhoea, tuberculosis, malaria and other illnesses.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The demise of health services in Somalia makes it extremely difficult for relief agencies to compile reliable statistics on the incidence of child mortality.

  Since January 1992 and in response to individual requests from relief agencies, we have committed £2·8 million in humanitarian aid funds in support of health care activities. This includes support for mother and child health care programmes and an expanded programme on immunisation, both of which are helping to reduce the incidence of disease in children.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in removal of mines in Somalia; and what assistance his Department has given.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British company Rimfire has been training and supervising more than 400 local people in a major mine clearance programme in north-west Somalia, the worst affected region, for the last 19 months. Over that period, we have contributed £673,000 to the Hargeisa part of the operation. Work in Hargeisa has now been completed. Later this year we expect UNOSOM II to put forward a plan to address the mine clearance needs of the whole of Somalia. In the meantime Rimfire's multi-donor funded operation in the north-west continues.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in involving Somali professionals in the reconstruction of the country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  UNOSOM II employs some Somali professional staff and relief agencies rely heavily on Somali staff, many of whom are professionals, to help plan and implement their programmes. We shall encourage the employment of Somali professionals wherever appropriate and expect the numbers employed to accelerate as the process of recovery gets under way.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints have been received about the standard of training at agencies to which his Department refers clients.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no central record of such complaints. Local training and enterprise councils contract with providers to deliver Government funded training programmes in their areas. TECs are required to operate quality control procedures and will take up any complaint made to them by a client.
  253

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement outlining the current training provision given to disability employment advisers concerning the interpretation of reasonable cause for the dismissal of registered disabled people from employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The question whether there is reasonable cause for a particular dismissal is a matter of fact for the court to decide in the light of all the circumstances of the case. Disability employment advisers do not advise on such matters and, therefore, receive no specific training on the interpretation of this provision.

  Youth Training
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of young people who are eligible for youth training schemes under the youth training guarantee are receiving such training; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In May there were around 241,000 young people in England on youth training—YT—or participating in youth credits, there were a further 4,000 young people who were covered by the YT guarantee and had been waiting for a YT place for eight or more weeks, of whom 1,600 had already received an offer.

  Information on how many young people who are in training and were covered by the guarantee is not available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place on breaches of the Sunday trading laws in the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1991, the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, 522 prosecutions were brought under part IV of the Shops Act, of which 86 were brought to successful conclusions.

  Street Violence
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority he attaches to initiatives addressed to street violence and mugging.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A high priority is given to such initiatives. Many of the schemes funded by the safer cities programme have been targeted at street violence.

  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when next he plans to meet representatives of the fire and civil defence authorities to discuss their funding requirements for 1994–95.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no immediate plans for such a meeting.
  254

  Prison Privatisation
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's prison privatisation programme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following the contracting out of the Wolds remand prison and Her Majesty's prison Blakenhurst, tenders for Her Majesty's prison Doncaster are to be invited in July. The market testing of Manchester prison is proceeding and a decision on the service supplier is expected in July.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will allow the existing prison service to bid to run the prison in future prison privatisation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Prison Service will not be bidding in the next competitive tender to run Her Majesty's prison Doncaster. This continues the policy of no in-house bids for new establishments in the current building programme, which ends with Doncaster. The service will concentrate on preparing in-house bids for the next tranche of market testing of existing establishments.

  Police Service (Changes)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans next to meet representatives of the Superintendents Association in the north-west to discuss the Government's proposed changes to the police service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet north-western representatives of the Superintendents Association.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding appeals against lenient sentences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We receive representations from time to time both about individual cases and about the scope of the powers vested in my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. His careful and discriminating use of those powers has repeatedly proved the wisdom of that legislation.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has carried out into current methods of dealing with persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office has commissioned more than 47 research projects on various aspects of juvenile crime since 1979; but the Government's conclusion that the existing powers of the courts to deal with persistent juvenile offending are unsatisfactory also took account of views firmly expressed by experienced practitioners within the criminal justice system. Currently an in-depth survey of persistent juvenile offending, and the response made to it, is being carried out in two London
  255
  boroughs and one midlands county as part of the preparation for the introduction of the new secure training order for persistent juvenile offenders which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) announced in his statement on 2 March 1993, Official Report, columns 139–42.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of current measures to deal with persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend shares the view of his predecessor that the powers currently available to the courts when they have to deal with persistent juvenile offenders are unsatisfactory. He intends therefore to take forward the proposals for the secure training order which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) announced to the House on 2 March 1993,Official Report, columns 139–42, and to bring the necessary legislation before the House as soon as possible.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss the problems arising from juvenile offenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers on 28 May 1993 although he has not yet had the opportunity to discuss the subject of juvenile offending with representatives of the association. He is, however, aware of the views which they have expressed about it, for example in evidence given earlier this year to the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

  Crime Levels, Yorkshire
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit Yorkshire in the near future to discuss levels of crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has, at present, no plans to make such a visit; but we have, and will maintain, regular contacts with services, organisations and individuals knowledgeable about crime in Yorkshire.

  Security Services
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards parliamentary accountability of the security services.

  Mr. Howard
  Government policy on the accountability of the Security Service was set out in their reply to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs which was published on 27 May.

  British Summer Time
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extension of British summer time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As I explained in my reply to a question from the hon. Member on 30 November 1992,256
  Official Report, column 7, the Government will bring forward proposals on future summer time arrangements when the outcome of the current review by the European Commission is clear.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with car manufacturers about reducing the incidence of car theft.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is represented on the Home Office advisory committee on car crime prevention, one of the main aims of which is to consider what practical steps car manufacturers and others can take to reduce the incidence of car theft.

  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with fleet buyers in seeking to prevent car crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association is represented on the Home Office advisory committee on car crime prevention which meets regularly to discuss what more can be done to help prevent car crime.

  In addition, a senior officer from the Home Office crime prevention centre sits on the panel which assesses entries for the BVRLA's prestigious vehicle anti-theft award. I shall be presenting this year's award later this month.

  National Board for Crime Prevention
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representative of business and commerce have been included in the membership of the National Board for Crime Prevention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Three of the 11 members of the National Board for Crime Prevention have commercial or business backgrounds. They are: Keith Ackroyd, the managing director of the retail division of the Boots Company plc, and chairman of the British Retail Consortium; Peter Batchelor, the executive director of sales and marketing at Vauxhall Motors; and David Sieff, a director at Marks and Spencer.

  Rape
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has commissioned about the length of sentences for rape.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has commissioned no such studies. But information about the length of custodial sentences imposed for all indictable offences is published regularly in the series of Command Papers entitled "Criminal Statistics", copies of which are in the Library of the House. They show that virtually all persons convicted of rape offences—including attempted rape—are sentenced to immediate custody and that, excluding cases in which the court has imposed the maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the average sentence length, which was just over four years in 1985, rose to approximately six years in 1987 and has remained at that level ever since.
  257

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has conducted into domestic violence.

  Mr. Maclean
  Relevant factual information is regularly obtained through the British crime survey and recorded crime statistics. In addition, the Home Office has undertaken studies into the nature of domestic violence as well as the response to the problem. A review of existing research in 1989—Home Office research study 107: "Domestic Violence": Lorna J. F. Smith—provided fresh insight into the nature of domestic violence and contributed to the guidance that was issued in July 1990 to the police and Crown Prosecution Service to ensure a quick and effective response. A current Home Office research study is assessing the effects of the new policies. In the area of action research, the Home Office is also funding a number of local innovative projects into violence and in particular domestic violence which are intended to inform future policy development.

  Carl Bridgewater Case
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the Carl Bridgewater case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I would refer the hon. Member to the oral reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

  Feltham Young Offender Centre
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the allowance of food to the young people in Feltham young offender and remand centre.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated June 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about what plans he has to increase the allowance of food to the young people in Feltham Young Offender and Remand Centre.

  The daily food allowance was increased on 1 May 1993. In the case of Feltham this resulted in an increase from £1·22 to £1·35 per prisoner per day. There are no plans for a further increase in the allowance or the amount of food provided, which we believe is adequate.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what structured training programmes he intends to introduce at Feltham young offender and remand centre.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated June 1993:
  258
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the structured training programmes that are to be introduced at Feltham Young Offender and Remand Centre.

  Sentenced young offenders will be provided with their own training plans by the end of September which will take account of their needs, behaviour, attitude, education and work options. There will be modules which challenge offending behaviour and 'relapse prevention' training. Opportunities for achieving National Vocational Qualifications in a range of subjects including Gardening. Painting and Decorating, Catering, Industrial Cleaning and Business Administration will be offered in appropriate cases. Discussions with the local NVQ advisor will be held by the end of July with a view to introducing the NVQ arrangements before the end of 1993.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a probation department at Feltham young offender and remand centre.

  Mr. Maclean
  Feltham remand centre has a team of one senior and five main grade probation officers. The young offender institution has a single senior probation officer whose main role is to develop and maintain the operation of the personal officer scheme and act as liaison point between the institution and the outside supervising services.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to prevent young people from becoming victims of drug abuse.

  Mr. Maclean
  One of the primary tasks of 20 Home Office local drug prevention teams is to work with local communities in finding effective ways of tackling misuse, particularly among high-risk groups such as young people.

  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners with AIDS have been granted early parole under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  New Age Travellers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests he has had from police authorities in the west of England for assistance in helping to meet the extra costs incurred by dealing with past and expected new age traveller invasions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Police (Stress-related Illnesses)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many working days have been lost through stress-related illnesses in each police force area in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be collected from individual forces only at disproportionate cost.
  259

  Palace of Westminster (Fire Safety)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates in the past 10 years when the Palace of Westminster and parliamentary outbuildings have been inspected for compliance with the fire safety regulations and standards which apply; if he will give details of all fire safety regulations and standards which apply; if he will list those areas where the inspections have found non-compliance with the relevant requirements; and what steps he has taken to rectify the situation in those areas.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During the past 10 years, members of Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate have visited the Palace of Westminster on nine scheduled occasions to monitor the progress of an agreed programme of work necessary before the issue of a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971.

  These visits were in:

  November 1983

  October 1984

  April 1987

  January 1988

  July 1989

  January 1990

  February 1990

  January 1991

  February 1991

  Numerous other visits have been made to address specific points and the work should be complete in 1994.

  There are nine parliamentary outbuildings which are dealt with individually for the purpose of fire certification. Some hold certificates, and some have applications under consideration. I will write to the hon. Member with full details.

  Police (Red Tape)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce red tape in the police force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  An extensive study into police paperwork is being undertaken. It will propose ways in which the administrative procedures following an arrest can be streamlined without jeopardising the rights of suspects. A review was also undertaken last year to examine ways in which the demands on the police for statistical and other information from the Home Office could be reduced. Computerisation and civilianisation are also being pursued as ways of relieving operational officers of administrative tasks.

  Custody Officers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures showing the total number of custody officers in each police force in England and Wales in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The post of custody officer was introduced by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which did not come into effect until 1 January 1986. The table shows the total number of custody officers in 1992 in those police forces in England and Wales for which figures are available. I understand that those forces for which figures are not shown appoint custody officers from their complement of sergeants as and when they are needed.
  260

  Custody officers in police forces in England and Wales for 1992

  Force title

  Number of custody officers in post

  Avon and Somerset

  64

  Bedfordshire

  15

  Cambridgeshire

  25

  Cheshire

  32

  City of London

  n/a

  Cleveland

  25

  Cumbria

  29

  Derbyshire

  21

  Devon and Cornwall

  40

  Dorset

  10

  Durham

  31

  Dyfed Powys

  12

  Essex

  38

  Gloucestershire

  22

  Greater Manchester

  273

  Gwent

  21

  Hampshire

  6

  Hertfordshire

  46

  Humberside

  57

  Kent

  12

  Lancashire

  98

  Leicestershire

  49

  Lincolnshire

  13

  Metropolitan

  n/a

  Merseyside

  27

  Northumbria

  81

  North Wales

  23

  Norfolk

  14

  Northamptonshire

  21

  North Yorkshire

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  64

  South Wales

  63

  South Yorkshire

  27

  Staffordshire

  58

  Suffolk

  12

  Surrey

  n/a

  Sussex

  n/a

  Thames Valley

  45

  Warwickshire

  23

  West Mercia

  9

  West Midlands

  201

  West Yorkshire

  47

  Wiltshire

  17

  Total

  1,685

  Prison Escort Service
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the highest number of escapes in a week from the prison escort service(a) since 1988 and (b) since Group 4 Security has operated the service.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated June 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the highest number of escapes in a week from the Prison Escort Service (a) since 1988 and (b) since Group 4 Court Services Ltd has operated the service.

  From 1988 until Group 4 Court Services Ltd became involved in the Court Escort Service, the highest number of prisoners who escaped in one week was 12. On 5 April 1993 Group 4 Court Services Ltd began operating in one area, the East Midlands and Humberside—replacing both Prison Service and the substantially more numerous police escorts in

  261
  that area. Since 5 April the highest number of prisoner escapes in one week, up to the end of May, was 6. These figures include all escorts from prisons in England and Wales staffed by Prison Service personnel or Group 4 Court Services Ltd staff, but excludes escapes from police escort.

  This information is derived from incidents reported to the Incident Management Support Unit, a part of the Directorate of Custody.

  Investigation

  Accountant inspector and support staff from his firm including disbursements

  Legal inspector and support including disbursements

  Total cost

  £

  £

  £

  Guinness Plc

  1,510,000

  389,000

  1,899,000

  Pennine Commercial Holdings Plc

  343,000

  34,000

  377,000

  James Ferguson Holdings Plc Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited

  3,748,000

  1,350,000

  5,098,000

  Consolidated Gold Fields Plc

  2,949,000

  299,000

  3,248,000

  Atlantic Computers Plc Atlantic Computer Systems Plc

  4,036,000

  1,460,000

  5,496,000

  London United Investments Plc CR Driver and Company Limited

  1,805,000

  394,000

  2,199,000

  Wace UK Holdings Limited Tinsley Robor Plc European Colour Plc

  —

  —

  1222,000

  Mirror Group Newspapers Plc

  2,321,000

  412,000

  2,733,000

  1 Inspectors are both DTI officers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost of each of the company investigations completed by his Department during the year to 31 March and the manner in which such costs have been disbursed to the relevant individual inspectors.

  Investigation

  Accountant inspector and support staff from his firm including disbursements

  Legal inspector and support including disbursements

  Total cost

  £

  £

  £

  National Westminster Bank Plc

  2,101,000

  477,000

  2,578,000

  Norton Group Plc

  842,000

  156,000

  998,000

  Edencorp Leisure Plc

  —

  —

  1207,000

  James Neill Holdings Plc; Francis Industries Limited; FH Lloyd Holdings Plc; The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company; Metal Closures Group Plc; Winchmore Pic

  129,000

  125,000

  254,000

  1 Inspectors were both DTI officers.

  Accounting Standards Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has held with the Accounting Standards Board on its priorities.
  262

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cost of each of the company investigations currently in progress and the manner in which it has been disbursed to the relevant individual inspectors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The cost of current Companies Act inspections charged to date, inclusive of VAT, is as follows:

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The cost of Companies Act inspections, completed during the year to 31 March 1993, inclusive of VAT, is as follows:

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I discussed the work of the Accounting Standards Board with the chairman and members of the board last July. I expect to have further discussions with them in due course.
  263

  Ernst and Young
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken against Ernst and Young following criticisms of the firm's standards by his inspectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors' reports concerned have been referred to the firm's supervisory body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. As a recognised supervisory body, the institute is responsible for taking any disciplinary or regulatory action against an auditor registered with it.

  Industrial Development
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the financing of industrial development.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department keeps in regular contact with the Bank of England on a range of matters. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last met the Governor in January.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent trend in the amount for electricity imported and exported via the channel interconnector, and on the prospects of the remainder of 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  Net imports across the interconnector in the three months from February to April 1993 were 4.29 TWh. The future pattern of trade will depend on the operation of commercial contracts, including a contract for the export from the United Kingdom of increasing quantities of electricity at periods of peak demand in France during the winter.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Received

  259

  298

  593

  607

  568

  675

  1,081

  814

  Approved

  218

  256

  405

  457

  396

  377

  558

  337

  Refused

  10

  17

  61

  51

  71

  44

  143

  109

  Cancelled/withdrawn

  31

  25

  127

  99

  101

  1254

  2270

  2133

  No licence required

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  53

  Outstanding at year end

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  182

  Note:

  The basis on which the figures were collected changes after 1990. Up to 1990 the figures show the final outcome for all licences received in each year. For 1991 and 1992, the figures show the position at the end of the year for all licences received that year. So: the figure marked 1 includes pending cases at end 1990, and 2 includes cases still pending at the end of the previous year.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  11990

  Received

  367

  295

  315

  401

  410

  241

  Approved

  323

  272

  272

  327

  345

  118

  Refused

  11

  6

  16

  25

  19

  28

  Cancelled/withdrawn

  33

  17

  27

  49

  46

  95

  1 Until August.

  Since August 1990 UN sanctions have been enforced against Iraq. Licences are granted only for humanitarian
  264

  Export Licences
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licence applications were referred to Ministers for(a) Iran and (b) Iraq for each year from 1980; and of those for each country in each year how many were (a) granted and (b) refused.

  Mr. Needham
  No reliable information is available from 1980–84. Export licence applications for Iran from 1985 to 1992, and for Iraq from 1985 to August 1990, were considered by the interdepartmental committee—IDC—which consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All applications for the IDC are referred to FCO and MOD Ministers to give final approval to the military, atomic and nuclear list goods. Final approval for industrial list goods rests with the DTI unless the FCO has overriding political considerations.

  DTI Ministers become involved only if there is a policy issue which needs to be resolved. In 1992 DTI procedures were changed, and all IDC cases are now referred to DTI Ministers.

  Since August 1990, as only humanitarian exports have received exports for Iraq, no licence applications have been referred to DTI Ministers.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licence applications for(a) Iran and (b) Iraq were received for each year from 1980; and how many in each year for each country were (i) granted, (ii) refused, (iii) withdrawn or (iv) cancelled.

  Mr. Needham
  Export licence applications before 1985 have not been preserved, following a regular programme of destruction of routine documents.

  From 1985 to 1992 export licence applications for Iran were processed by the interdepartmental committee—IDC—which was composed of representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. The most accurate figures available are as follows:

  From 1985 to August 1990, export licence applications for Iraq were processed by the IDC. The figures are as follows:

  purposes. Applications for licences are considered carefully on a case-by-case basis, not only in the United

  265
  Kingdom, but by the UN sanctions committee in New York which has, since October 1992, have issued letters of authorisation for each export. The figures are:

  11990

  1991

  1992

  Received

  117

  423

  1,043

  Approved

  7

  342

  696

  Refused

  18

  21

  154

  Pending at year end

  92

  60

  193

  1 August-December.

  Iran and Iraq
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of United Kingdom exports to(a) Iran and (b) Iraq for each year from 1980, broken down into civil and defence-related exports for each country.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom visible trade is pubished in the "Annual Abstract of Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it has been the consistent policy of successive Governments not to disclose particulars of defence trade with other countries. It is therefore not possible to provide a breakdown into civil and defence-related exports.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the transitional reinsurance facility provided by ECGD to the privatised successor of its Insurance Services Group.

  Mr. Needham
  At the time of privatisation of ECGD's Insurance Services Group, the Government undertook to top up the reinsurance available from the private sector as necessary for up to three years to ensure that the reinsurance needs of the privatised operation would be met.

  It has become clear that in the immediate future capacity in the private reinsurance market may well not expand sufficiently to meet the likely demand for short-term export credit insurance. This, in turn, reflects the current rapid growth in our exports.

  The Government have, therefore, decided to extend the transitional reinsurance facility until at least the end of 1997. It nevertheless remains the Government's objective to maximise the extent to which reinsurance is provided by the private market and it will take all necessary measures to encourage that process. The Government retain the right, however, to terminate this facility, but, in order to provide a stable framework of support for both insurers and United Kingdom exporters, it undertakes to give two years' notice of any such decision. The case for continuation of the facility beyond 1997 will be reviewed annually from 1995.

  Given the significant change in the nature of this facility, the Government have also decided that they should, in principle, be available to other credit insurers who give support to our exporters.

  I am pleased to be able to make this statement in response to the representations which have been made to me by the principal export credit insurers, exporting companies and their representative organisations. It
  266
  further underlines the Government's commitment to promoting exports in order both to protect and provide jobs and reinforce our emergence from recession.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for the year 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The 19th annual report by the
  Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1992. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will report on progress to implement the United Kindom's voluntary offer to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency under the terms of INFCIRC/415 with information on international transfers of nuclear materials and equipment.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on licensed United Kingdom transfers of nuclear equipment to countries outside the European Community will be provided quarterly by my Department. Information on nuclear materials, licensed for export to a country outside the European Community, is being provided on behalf of the Twelve by the Commission of the European Community. We consider the provision of this information to the agency to be in the public interest as part of continuing efforts to strengthen IAEA safeguards.

  Commercial confidentiality will be respected. The agency has undertaken to treat the information with the same level of confidentiality as that applied to information under a safeguards agreement.

  Company Failures
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of company insolvencies and liquidations in the Greater London area during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No geographical information on creditors' voluntary liquidations is available. For compulsory liquidations and bankruptcy orders, the only geographical information is by the court in which the order was made. This is not a good basis for analysing business location, since many cases in England and Wales are dealt with in London regardless of the business's location, and work may be moved between courts according to differing workloads.

  Information for businesses in Greater London could be obtained only by scrutinising individual case files, which would involve disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Facilities
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which nuclear facilities are incapable of meeting a dose constraint of 0·3 mSv of radiation per year for members of the public.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  None, although in some cases this could involve disproportionate cost. A constraint of 0·3 mSv of radiation

  267
  per year for members of the public has recently been recommended as a design and planning target for new plant.

WALES

  Strikes
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many work days were lost through strike action in Wales for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Stoppages of work due to industrial disputes

  Year

  Days lost (thousands)

  1979

  1,642

  1980

  2,918

  1981

  292

  1982

  283

  1983

  353

  1984

  3,527

  1985

  940

  1986

  78

  1987

  203

  1988

  116

  1989

  307

  1990

  84

  1991

  20

  1992

  10

  Source: Employment Department.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give details of the total number and whole-time equivalent number of health care assistants or health assistants or health care support workers employed wholly or primarily in nursing roles by the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992;

  (2) if he will give details of the whole-time equivalent numbers of (a) agency and (b) bank nursing and midwifery staff employed in the national health service for each year from 1987 to 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information is not held centrally in sufficient detail to enable breakdowns of nursing staff employed by health authorities and national health service trusts into occupational groups such as those requested.

  Acorn Nursery, Cardiff
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what amount the Welsh Office subsidises the Acorn private nursery in Cardiff.

  Mr. Redwood
  The interdepartmental civil service nursery in Cardiff is currently managed under contract by Acorns Nurseries, which is not subsidised by the Welsh Office.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures of the total number of jobs created by foreign investment in Wales by companies from(a) Japan,
  268
  (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) the United States of America in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The total number of new and safeguarded jobs promised by inward investment projects recorded in the past five financial years is shown in the table. These figures are based on information provided by the companies at the time and take no account of subsequent developments.

  As the figures show, the United States and Japan have been especially good generators of jobs in Wales.

  Year

  Japan

  Germany

  France

  USA

  1988–89

  984

  1,688

  177

  3,460

  1989–90

  1,926

  291

  630

  3,718

  1990–91

  1,129

  586

  1,683

  3,399

  1991–92

  2,264

  1,559

  587

  3,052

  1992–93

  530

  415

  772

  3,983

  Totals

  6,833

  4,539

  3,849

  17,612

  Forest Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the areas of forest land which(a) were offered for sale on 16 June 1989 and (b) have been put up for sale since that date, indicating which have been sold to the private sector and the receipts, by county, accruing to the Forestry Commission from such sales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the areas of forest land which were offered for sale on and after 16 June 1989 is not readily available and could be provided only at disporportionate cost. Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission from the start of the disposals programme in July 1981 to December 1992 are held in the Library of the House. Records of the receipts accruing from these sales are not held on a county basis.

  Children
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to give one of his Ministers special responsibility for children.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no such plans.

  Hepatitis A
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) of 7 June,Official Report, column 132, what was the total number of cases of hepatitis A recorded in Wales for each county in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of cases of hepatitis A recorded in Wales for each county in each year since 1987 is given in the table. Information prior to 1987 is not available.

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Clwyd

  4

  5

  11

  15

  37

  Dyfed

  6

  8

  8

  7

  5

  Gwent

  10

  23

  8

  25

  71

  Gwynedd

  2

  1

  2

  2

  3

  269

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Mid Glamorgan

  6

  7

  2

  21

  68

  Powys

  2

  1

  2

  4

  2

  South Glamorgan

  5

  37

  31

  50

  19

  West Glamorgan

  4

  15

  4

  27

  39

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Prince of Wales Orthopaedic Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority in relation to the suspension of the director of the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar in Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. No further comment can be made while the issues are under consideration by the health authority.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Overseas Incapacity Provision
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on incapacity provision abroad.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department collects information on foreign social security schemes, including the provision of incapacity benefits, from a wide range of sources. These include the following publications which are held in the Library:"Social Security Programmes Throughout the World"
  "Social Protection in the Member States of the Community"
  "Mercer's International Benefit Guidelines"

  Unemployment Register
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were removed from the unemployment registers in each month during the last two years; and how many of them were removed from the registers(a) for making fraudulent claims, (b) for not genuinely seeking work and (c) unreasonably refusing a job offer.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. leuan Wyn Jones, dated 24 June 1993:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about. the number of people removed from the unemployment register in the last two years for making fraudulent claims, not genuinely seeking work and unreasonably refusing a job offer. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  I would first like to apologise for the delay in replying to this question, which was due for reply on 10 May. The delay occurred because the question was originally tabled to the Welsh Office. I understand that, following receipt of the question, the Welsh Office contacted the Department of
  270
  Social Security (DSS) who accepted responsibility for preparing a reply. The question was then transferred to the DSS. The Table Office last week contacted the DSS to enquire as to when the question had been passed to the Employment Department for reply. While the Employment Department officials have no record of being contacted by the DSS, we accept that the question is the responsibility of the Employment Service and have prepared the following reply.

  On the question itself, it may help if I first explain that the monthly unemployment count includes all people claiming unemployment benefits, such as unemployment benefit (UB), income support (IS) or National Insurance credits, on the day of the count and who, on that day, were signed on as unemployed and available for work. Essentially, all people who sign as unemployed are counted irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit. A person ceases to be included in the count only if they choose not to continue signing for whatever reason.

  Below are the quarterly figures for the number of people who, over the last two operational years, have withdrawn their claims to benefit or have started to declare part-time earnings, not previously disclosed, as a direct result of an investigation by an Employment Service Inspector. Monthly figures arc not available.

  Quarterly Periods

  Withdrawn/Modified claims

  1 April 1991 to 30 June 1991

  12,451

  1 July 1991 to 31 September 1991

  13,351

  1 October 1991 to 31 December 1991

  12,528

  1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992

  14,691

  1 April 1992 to 30 June 1992

  17,747

  1 July 1992 to 31 September 1992

  18,555

  1 October 1992 to 31 December 1992

  15,150

  1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993

  12,259

  Figures are not collected for the number of people who choose not to continue signing as a result of their benefit being disallowed for failing to actively seek work or for refusing employment. People who continue to sign while a disallowance is in force are included in the unemployment count.

  I hope this is helpful.

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

TRANSPORT

  Bus Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the annual number of bus journeys by passengers in each year since 1985–86(a) by region and (b) in Great Britain.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of bus journeys made by passengers in Great Britain in each year since 1985–86 is given in the table. Regional data are not available. Area figures for local bus journeys in London, English metropolitan areas, English shire countries, Scotland and Wales are given in table 2.1 of "Bus and Coach Statistics 1991–92", a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Bus passenger journeys in Great Britain

  Million

  Year

  Local journeys

  Non-local journeys

  All journeys

  1985–86

  5,641

  537

  6,178

  1986–87

  5,341

  572

  5,913

  1987–88

  5,292

  592

  5,884

  1988–89

  5,215

  563

  5,778

  271

  Year

  Local journeys

  Non-local journeys

  All journeys

  1989–90

  5,074

  594

  5,668

  1990–91

  4,852

  619

  5,471

  1991–92

  4,669

  1—

  1—

  1—Passenger journey data for non-local bus services have not been collected since 1990–91.

  Source: Statistical returns from PSV operators.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many successful applications have been

  Number of registrations and variations accepted by traffic area offices

  Year

  Metropolitan

  South East

  East

  West

  South Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  North East

  Scotland

  Total

  1986–87 (Breakdown of figures by TAO region not available)

  New Registrations

  2,469

  Variations

  3,562

  1987–88

  New Registrations

  340

  802

  1,189

  626

  280

  496

  1,656

  1,371

  652

  7,412

  Variations

  1,153

  2,338

  3,120

  1,610

  1,101

  1,801

  3,694

  4,342

  3,701

  22,860

  1988–89

  New Registrations

  286

  548

  854

  620

  384

  375

  1,321

  1,912

  719

  7,019

  Variations

  635

  1,860

  2,340

  1,562

  1,030

  1,345

  3,120

  3,317

  2,566

  17,775

  1989–90

  New Registrations

  290

  545

  1,070

  387

  360

  441

  1,699

  1,842

  971

  7,605

  Variations

  763

  1,562

  2,649

  1,073

  754

  1,440

  2,776

  3,773

  2,306

  17,096

  1990–911

  New Registrations

  329

  548

  915

  354

  440

  353

  1,053

  1,468

  570

  6,030

  Variations

  638

  1,457

  2,399

  1,024

  878

  1,213

  2,730

  3,198

  2,197

  15,734

  1991–921 SEMTA (South East and Metropolitan merged this year)

  New Registrations

  508

  788

  559

  443

  805

  1,340

  1,442

  736

  6,621

  Variations

  1,016

  1,968

  1,681

  714

  1,567

  3,836

  3,180

  1,764

  15,726

  1 Figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are not directly comparable with earlier years in all cases. Traffic Area Offices were reorganised in 1991, involving some redistribution of work.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the grounds for his recent overturning of the traffic commissioner's decision to impose traffic regulation conditions on bus services in Sheffield.

  Mr. Freeman
  The traffic commissioner's decision was not overturned; it was varied. The reasons are set out in full in the decision letter which I will send to the hon. Member.

  Trains (Bicycles and Luggage)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail on the arrangements for, and costs of, carrying bicycles and luggage by train(a) within the existing structure of the rail network and (b) after the introduction of franchising.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. At present this is a matter for British Rail. After privatisation, the Government believe that private sector operators will be keen to respond to passengers' demands, tailoring their services to make them more attractive and thus maximise fare revenue.
  272
  made to the traffic commissioners to run a new bus service; and how many were for new routes in each year since 1986 (a) by region and (b) in Great Britain;

  (2) how many changes in bus services were registered with the traffic commissioners in each year since 1986 (a) by region and (b) in Great Britain.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of registrations of new bus services and variations to services in Great Britain since 1986 are set out in the table. Details are not available on a regional basis, but are given for each traffic area office. Figures on the number of new routes are not available.

SCOTLAND

  Kilgarth Tip
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a decision on applications before him in respect of Kilgarth tip, Coatbridge.

  Mr. Lang
  Submissions on the appeal by Glasgow district council against conditions imposed by Monklands district council on the waste disposal licence for Kilgarth tip, Coatbridge, were completed on 6 April. They are now under consideration and the decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the amounts to be allocated to each of the access funds for education in Scotland for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1993]: A total of £3·606 million will be available for the access funds for higher and further education institutions in Scotland for academic year 1993–94; individual allocations to the three funds have yet to be determined. In the academic year 1992–93, a total of some £3·3 million was disbursed in access funds to higher and further

  273
  education institutions, including universities, in Scotland. The overall provision for 1993–94 thus represents an increase of about 9·6 per cent. over 1992–93.

  With the change in funding arrangements for higher education under the Further and Higher Education Acts 1992, responsibility for the provision of access funds for students at previously Universities Funding Council-funded universities in Scotland has been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Improper Expenditure (Surcharges)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory rights he has to surcharge members of(a) health boards, (b) health trusts, (c) local enterprise companies, (d) other non-departmental public bodies and (e) elected local authorities; what plans he has to make any change to the current situation, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 June 1993]: I have no statutory powers to surcharge members of health boards, national health service trusts or local enterprise companies. As far as local authorities are concerned the position is that, following recommendations made by the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland relating to unlawful or improper expenditure incurred by any local authority, I am empowered by section 104 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to consider the possibility of surcharging the person or persons concerned, a sum not exceeding the amount of unlawful or improper expenditure in question. Under the same section of that Act, I am empowered also to surcharge members of river purification boards, which are non-departmental public bodies. I have no statutory powers to surcharge members of non-departmental bodies. I have no plans to change the present arrangements in respect of any category of body.

DEFENCE

  Maintenance Depots
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the maintenance depots which carry out(a) first and (b) second-line repair services; indicating (i) which of them use contractors and (ii) the number of inspectors at each depot to check contractors' work; and how many vehicles were sent back to contractors because of unsatisfactory work in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Aitken
  First and second-line maintenance is normally undertaken by service or civilian personnel at the units where the vehicles or equipment are actually in use. For example, RAF first and second-line work is usually undertaken by service and civilian personnel at operational/training flying stations.

  In the Army, work is also carried out by the Army Base Repair Organisation which provides facilities for second-line repair at:

  26 District Workshop Stirling

  27 District Workshop Warminster

  31 District Workshop Catterick

  36 District Workshop Colchester

  43 District Workshop Aldershot

  44 District Workshop Ashford

  Eng Res Workshop Long Marston

  Contractors are not employed for this work.
  274
  The Royal Navy does, however, use contractors for scheduled maintenance, which includes first and second-line repair, of Royal Navy helicopters and aircraft at:

  RNAS Portland

  RNAS Yeovilton

  RNAS Culdrose

  RNAS Roborough

  Figures are not available for the number of vehicles, if any, sent back to contractors following first or second-line repair, or the number of staff whose duties include inspection of contractors work, and compilation of such data would involve disproportionate cost.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by AWE Aldermaston on the radiological contamination of soil at Aldermaston court.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has issued his Department with the equivalent of an administration order to remove radiologically contaminated soil around manhole covers of the pipeline used by AWE Aldermaston to discharge radioactive waste to the Thames; if he will place in the Library the results of the soil analysis carried out by AWE Aldermaston; if he will publish a list of the landowners involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is aware of the low-level contamination found in small areas of soil immediately adjacent to a pipeline taking treated liquid effluent from AWE Aldermaston. Our plan for its removal will be submitted to them for approval.

  Our discussions with the landowners are in confidence and it is not for us to make their identities public. I will write to the hon. Member about the soil analysis carried out by AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 2 March,Official Report, column 111, if he will place a copy of the results of the inquiry into the incident at AWE Aldermaston on 8 December 1992 in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  The report of the inquiry into the incident at AWE on 8 December 1992 was written for management purposes and it would not be appropriate to make it available. However, a copy of the report has been passed to the Health and Safety Executive and I have written to the director general asking him to consider it carefully as part of their independent safety review, following which a report will be published.

  Expenditure
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual defence expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product from 1963.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1963–64

  6·0

  1964–65

  5·7

  1965–66

  5·7

  275

  Per cent.

  1966–67

  5·6

  1967–68

  5·5

  1968–69

  5·1

  1969–70

  4·7

  1970–71

  4·8

  1971–72

  4·9

  1972–73

  4·7

  1973–74

  4·7

  1974–75

  4·7

  1975–76

  4·9

  1976–77

  4·9

  1977–78

  4·6

  1978–79

  4·5

  1979–80

  4·6

  1980–81

  4·9

  1981–82

  5·0

  1982–83

  5·2

  1983–84

  5·2

  1984–85

  5·3

  1985–86

  5·1

  1986–87

  4·8

  1987–88

  4·4

  1988–89

  4·0

  1989–90

  4·0

  1990–91

  4·0

  1991–92

  4·2

  1992–93

  4·0

  Notes:

  1. Figures include exceptional expenditure on Falklands/Gulf conflict but exclude Gulf burden sharing contributions from other Governments.

  2. Figures from 1978–79 take account of the technical changes in the treatment of Armed Forces and civilian pensions described in the 1992 Autumn Statement (Cm 2096) and other classification changes. It has not been possible to adjust figures for years before 1978–79 on to a fully consistent basis and comparisons with 1978–79 and later years may therefore be unreliable.

  3. Figure for 1992–93 as at Spring Supplementary Estimate.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the level of the United Kingdom's defence spending in each of the last 10 years in(a) cash prices (b) constant prices and (c) as a proportion of gross national product.

  Mr. Hanley
  Detailed information on the level of the United Kingdom's defence spending between 1983–84 and 1992–93 was set out in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement", Cm 2219.

  Electronic Warfare Training
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contract for the provision of electronic warfare training to the RAF.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on 14 June,Official Report, columns 479–80.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what after-sales monitoring takes place to ensure that Hawk aircraft sold for training purposes are not converted to fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  Consideration is always given to the use to which defence equipment might be put before an export licence is granted. Assurances as to the end use of the Hawk aircraft will also be sought prior to supply.
  276

  Arms Sales (Indonesia)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what after-sales monitoring takes place to ensure that arms sold to Indonesia are not used for repressive purposes.

  Mr. Aitken
  All exports of defence equipment require an export licence, and applications are carefully scrutinised case by case. We do not allow the export of equipment likely to be used indiscriminately for the repression of civilian population. We have no evidence that British equipment supplied to Indonesia in the past has been used for civilian repression.

  Trooping the Colour
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to public funds of the annual ceremony of Trooping the Colour.

  Mr. Hanley
  No additional costs are incurred for the horses or the men, as they are funded in any event. Other costs associated with Trooping the Colour include drycleaning of ceremonial uniforms, accommodation services including facilities, fuel and transport costs, rations and communication costs. Full details are not recorded separately however and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Medication
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the amount spent by each service on medication in the last financial year; and what are the arrangements for the payments for medication by service men(a) on active service and (b) not on active service.

  Mr. Hanley
  The amount spent on medication—drugs and dressings—for each service in financial year 1992–93 was as follows:

  £ million

  Service

  Amount

  Royal Navy

  3·293

  Army

  12·190

  Royal Air Force

  5·615

  TOTAL

  21·098

  Service personnel are entitled to free medication whether or not they are on active service.

  Maralinga Nuclear Test Site
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 130, if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with Australian Ministers about the Maralinga nuclear test site in Australia.

  Mr. Hanley
  Australian and United Kingdom Ministers and officials met on 17 and 18 June to discuss the question of further clean-up of the former British nuclear weapon test sites in Australia. A proposal has been developed which Australian Ministers believe provides the basis for settling outstanding Australian claims against Britain. The solution envisages an ex gratia payment by
  277
  the United Kingdom to the Australian Government in full and final settlement of their claims. The proposal is to be considered by the Australian Cabinet.

  Army Personnel Centre
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) of 7 June,Official Report, column 12, how many married quarters there are in the Stockport and Glasgow areas for any personnel located in either area, for the proposed new Army personnel centre.

  Mr. Hanley
  It has been estimated that five existing married quarters in the Stockport area and 17 in the

  Country and Project

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–941

  £

  £

  £

  Afghanistan

  Mine Clearance

  —

  188,900

  290,631

  Afghanistan

  Minefield surveying planning and management; mine awarness; clearance training; clearance

  —

  1,000,000

  500,000

  Cambodia

  Mine Clearance, training and mine awareness programme

  60,000

  199,886

  232,520

  Cambodia

  Public awareness (radio programmes)

  —

  6,451

  —

  Somalia

  Mine clearance training; clearance management; mine awareness in the north-west

  300,000

  373,540

  —

  360,000

  1,768,777

  1,023,151

  1 To date.

  In addition, an allocation of £710,000 has recently been agreed for a project to establish and monitor three locally trained demining teams in the Zambezia province of Mozambique. Once the project has been formally agreed by the peace commission in Mozambique the Halo Trust will implement it.

  Apart from these humanitarian operations, United Kingdom military personnel are providing training in
  278
  Glasgow area could be made available for military personnel if the new centre were established at either location.

  Mine Clearing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution has been made by the United Kingdom to mine-clearing operations overseas in terms of financial costs and other forms of support.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since April 1991 the ODA has funded the following humanitarian mine clearance operations:

  mine clearance as part of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, and advice to the Government of Kuwait on mine clearance operations.

  The European Community also supports humanitarian mine clearance operations in for instance Afghanistan and northern Iraq. Part of the funding for such operations is borne by the United Kingdom.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Overseas Aid
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they take into account the UN Development Programme's Human Development Index in determining their aid programme.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, by concentrating our aid on low-income countries we take account of the same issues as those which make up the UNDP's Human Development Index.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that real purchasing power, levels of education and a degree of health provision are much better indicators of development than per capita GNP? If the Minister agrees with that does she also agree that there is ground for real anxieties that while developing countries as a whole are spending more than 25 per cent. of their GNP through government budgets, less than 10 per cent. of that is going to human development priorities and less than 7 per cent. of the total international aid effort is being spent on such human priorities? Is there nothing that can be done internationally to get the priorities right?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, knows that I have great sympathy with him in respect of this matter because reasonable health provision and education are two of the basic necessities of any country which is seeking to grow. I agree that many of the problems, such as high population growth rates, will, if they continue unchecked, prevent many developing countries achieving a sustainable reduction in poverty. That is why we have made people's choice about their fertility a focus for our aid. We have also shown that once family planning services and education for girls are widely available the whole of village life begins to grow in a way that nothing else can achieve. Whatever the percentage, until there is better provision for health and basic education we shall have that problem. That is why we are concentrating our resources in a number of our projects on specifically those issues. We are encouraging our partners as donors to do likewise.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, as chairman of the United Nations Children's Fund in this country I greatly acknowledge the assistance which the ODA has given to UNICEF for its programmes which provide these basic humanitarian needs. Most recently it gave £500,000 to UNICEF's programme in southern Sudan. Does the Minister agree that while some of the targets mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, may
466
be somewhat visionary and idealistic, an investment in health, education and housing is the best foundation for prosperous and democratic societies which we should encourage everywhere in the world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for what he said about the ODA's work with UNICEF. UNICEF is carrying out some magnificent work throughout the world and we try to support that whenever we can.
I realise the sincerity of the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is right in saying that the basic elements, not only as described by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but the provision that is made often through the non-governmental organisations and some of the United Nations agencies, make such a difference. In the last full financial year for which f have figures—that is 1991–92—about 30 per cent. of our bilateral aid was spent on the basic needs of healthcare and education. More resources were spent by the multilateral agencies on similar needs.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that when we give aid to southern Sudan it is almost invariably all wasted because they are very busy killing each other? The only thing that will make progress possible is peace and trade. It has been shown time after time that most of the aid has been wasted and it has done nothing to improve the lot of people about whom all of us, including myself, care.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend says. However, in addition to peace in southern Sudan, the work of the British non-governmental agencies in providing vaccination and basic healthcare is necessary. Peace without health will not enable the people of southern Sudan ever to reach the position of being able to trade. While that may be what we most want them to do, without health they will go nowhere.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that not nearly enough is being done, because the latest figures show that during the past few years the number of people starving in the world has risen from 1,300 million to 1,500 million? It is obvious that there is still a great deal to be done, and I should like to think that our Government are doing everything that they possibly can.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for his question. I assure him that we are doing everything that we possibly can, in particular to target our aid so that it helps the people in the worst possible position who can be helped, and so that it provides the foundation for their own economic activity wherever that can be helped. I can give the noble Lord that assurance because we are told from independent sources that our aid is among the best targetted and the best delivered in the world, thanks to our non-governmental organisations as well as our own organisation.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, may I assure the noble Baroness that the view expressed by the noble

467
Earl, Lord Onslow, is not shared by any Member on these Benches and I suspect that it is shared by only a small minority in this House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Perhaps I may point out that not to have trade is also an inhibitor of growth in developing countries. What they need above all is trade as well as aid; they cannot do without either.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Government's record on aid and help is very good indeed. However, is it not time that the United Nations and other countries tried to emulate the endeavours of this country? They have not succeeded in getting anywhere near what the British Government are doing to provide aid and help where it is required.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is being a little unfair on other donors; some are trying very hard. But no donor can improve the lot of these countries unless there is the willing participation of the recipient country to spend its money wisely. One of the reasons why this country has led the way in trying to improve the standards of government in developing countries is in order to ensure that those governments spend their resources wisely.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister, in responding to my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, was not implying that we on these Benches have been anything other than consistently determined in supporting improvements in free trade while other parties have wandered from time to time. Will the Minister confirm that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is right in saying that there has never been any doubt about the commitment of the Liberal Democrats to the need for trade. The only difficulty is that just as she accuses others of sometimes having wandered, over-regulation can impede trade. One of the things that we do not wish to see is over-regulation. Without straying into our later debates perhaps I may say that none of us is perfect, but we are all trying hard.
Lord Judd: My Lords does the Minister accept that in all parts of the House there will be great support for her in her humanitarian commitment and, indeed, in the battles that I am sure she will be having in the months ahead to secure the financial resources to turn her commitment into even greater action in the field? Will she agree that there are many success stories such as Costa Rica, Sri Lanka and Tanzania where human development ratings are way ahead of GNP ratings? Is there not more opportunity for the international community to study those success stories and to build on them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can recommend to anyone who feels like some good reading the Human Development Report 1993 from the United Nations. It is one of its best publications in
468
which there are many success stories—it is not all gloom and doom. Nor is that the case in Africa, as is sometimes portrayed. I hope that we can build on the good potential. That is what needs to be done.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those NGOs in this country involved in family planning and population and development are deeply grateful to her for her efforts at the ODA to help those NGOs? We hope sincerely that she will be able to double that effort in the future.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments.

Social Security Benefits: Administration
3.12 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to privatise or contract out the administration of any social security benefits during the lifetime of this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, there are no current plans to privatise the administration of any social security benefits. Some contracting out is already done by local authorities for housing benefit and council tax benefit, and by the Information Technology Service Agency for the issuing of payments of benefits.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for the assurance that there are no current plans, which I am relieved to hear. Does he agree that the lifeblood of private industry and commerce is profit? How can there be legitimate profit margins in the administration of social security without either increasing the total costs or reducing the standard of delivery?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said—and I am grateful that my noble kinsman noticed it—that there are no current plans for privatisation. However, I shall not rule out any further look at privatisation, and we shall certainly not rule out any further market testing. We wish to provide the best possible service for those who are entitled to it in the most cost-effective manner. If that means a degree of privatisation or further market testing, so be it. We are under a duty to provide the best possible service. If one of those two avenues provides that, that is the avenue that we shall take.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that should plans for contracting out and privatisation be pursued, that would raise real ethical issues? DSS staff are dealing with the most sensitive information about extremely vulnerable people in our society. The Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael Partridge, has warned that privatisation may bring "simple blackmail" and "commercial use". Do we really want to risk sleaze in social security?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have no intention of risking sleaze in social security. We are trying to administer our benefits in the most cost-efficient manner and to provide value for money for the

469
taxpayer. The cur rent administration of social security costs some £4 billion. Therefore, it is legitimate to look at ways of providing that service in a better manner arid achieving better value for money. I am trying to make clear that the activities which we are market testing at present and which are to be tested are, in the main, activities which are not core activities; for example, accommodation and office services, accountancy services, archival storage, audit, catering, and so on. I do not believe that those go to the core of delivery of benefits other than those which I mentioned in my first Answer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael Partridge, believes, in an internal report, that the Government's proposals may bring "simple blackmail" and "commercial use"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no contradiction between what I have said and what the Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael Partridge, said. I am saying that we wish to deliver the services in the best possible manner. Therefore, we shall market test those services which it is possible to market test within the present constraints. I do not wish to rule out any further look at privatisation or market testing if those avenues can provide the services in a better manner, providing better value for money for the taxpayer and at the same time providing as good a service in terms of delivering benefits for those who are entitled to them.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government ensure that complete confidentiality for individual clients is maintained when outside computer agencies are used?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Confidentiality will always remain of paramount importance.

Motorway Surfaces: Weather Effects
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to prevent sections of motorway becoming unusable in warm weather.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, standards and specifications used for the design and construction of motorways make due allowance for the effects of hot weather. The recent problems were exceptional. Any such problems are rectified as quickly as possible and in such a way as to cause minimum inconvenience to road users. Any significant failures are investigated and specifications changed if necessary.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Has the cause of the closure of the stretch of the M.4. on 9th June yet been diagnosed? Is it correct that that was the fourth failure in hot weather over the past four years on a stretch of road where disruption arises for passengers trying to reach Heathrow Airport?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are looking into the cause of the buckling of the concrete by the Heston service station on 7th and 8th June. That is being investigated by the department and the TRRL. There have been other cases of buckling in hot weather. However, if my noble friend considers that the M.4. is now 28 years old, that it carries about 100,000 vehicles each day and that it has not undergone major structural repairs, I am sure he will agree that that is a very fine performance.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the view of the British Road Federation that 5,000 miles of road are in urgent need of repair this year and that a further 3,700 miles will wear out over the next four years? Was not his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, therefore somewhat complacent? Is he really satisfied with the present situation? What was so exceptional about the circumstances which gave rise to those problems over a period of four years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a great majority of the questions posed by the noble Lord relate to roads in general rather than to the Question on the Order Paper. The likely cause of the buckling of the concrete on the M.11 and M.4. on that exceptional day is compression failure. The noble Lord will be interested to know that there was one such incident on the M.4. and four such incidents on the M.11.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what is being done to deal with those failures and to ensure that there is no repetition?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, an investigation is under way into both those incidents, as it is into other such serious incidents. If there are lessons to be learned and specifications to be changed, that will be done.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the Minister responsible for the decision to build the M.4., I thank my noble friend for his generous tribute.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that I am not the only person in your Lordships' House to pay tribute to my noble friend for the M.4. It is of great convenience to me when I need to go home.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, given the Minister's suggestion that there have been previous road failures due to hot weather, has any provision been made of sprinklers or sprinkling equipment to cool down the roads?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not to my knowledge. The incidents are few and far between, as they are in other countries where similar failures have occurred. There are over 2 million concrete joints in roads in this country. It would be quite an expensive operation to provide sprinkler systems for each of those joints.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the road surface of motorways affected in hot weather by excessive speeds or the weight of large vehicles?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, generally, no. The specification the department uses, which has been improved over time as we have learnt lessons from the past, is such that it is designed to cope with hot weather, and heavy and continuous use by traffic. There might be a problem if a tarmac road has been resurfaced with tarmac, because the bitumen takes longer to dry and set in hot weather than in cold weather.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister remember that the last time the Conservative Party had been in power this long it opened a motorway in Preston which broke up immediately? The Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said that he was very sorry but that it had been caused by frost. May I deduce that the only thing that has changed in 30 years is global warming?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one of the advantages of being in this Government is that one has opportunities to open motorways, something that the party of the noble Earl will be unable to do.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Cranborne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on dockyards that is to be made in another place.
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 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Committee stage of the New Towns (Amendment) Bill and the Third Reading of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill will be taken, followed by seven motions for approval.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Question is, that the House do now again—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I want to ask—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry, but is it not possible that we could take the Statement before the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, because that will then divide the business neatly and properly as opposed to having the Committee stage interrupted later? It seems to me a sensible suggestion.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, no.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone never thinks that anything is sensible. It might be a sensible thing to do if it were possible. It is merely a suggestion.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his suggestion. Other suggestions have been made through the usual channels. I believe the arrangements that have been agreed are generally acceptable to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Treaty on European Union]:
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 22:
Page I, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(a)")
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 22 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 to 26. This group of amendments deals with Article 3(a) - (e) of the Treaty on European Union. I propose to concentrate on agriculture. I do not intend to give the Committee a tour d'horizon under the heading: All you want to know about the CAP but are too afraid to ask. It is worth talking about the CAP now if only because it consumes a phenomenal two-thirds of the total Community budget. The CAP budget for 1990 was £19 billion. That rose to nearly £24 billion in 1992. I understand that it is set to increase by a mind blowing £7 billion over the next few years. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will enlighten us and tell us whether there are any more precise figures as to what the CAP budget will cost over the next few years. That information would be most interesting.
Those figures are not sustainable in an EC economy which, far from expanding, is contracting due largely to the high cost of its present social and economic policies. The CAP was set up under Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome to achieve the following aims: first, to increase agricultural productivity; secondly, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community; thirdly, to stabilise markets; and, fourthly, to ensure that supplies were available to consumers at reasonable prices.
The policy has failed on three counts and succeeded on only one, that of raising productivity. I am afraid that that one success has had in it the seeds of its own destruction: fruit and vegetable surpluses dumped at sea; grain mountains de-natured so that while half the world is starving that grain was made unfit for human consumption; milk lakes; butter mountains; wine lakes; oil lakes; and the mountains of Scotland and Wales heaving with sheep.
Did the policy ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community? The answer is to be found in the unrest among the farmers on the Continent, especially in France, Spain and Italy, and in the steady drain of people leaving the land in the United Kingdom—some 30,000 over the past 10 years. Did it stabilise markets? That was another of its stated aims. It may have stabilised prices within Europe, but at a level so far above any notional world price that European grain was, and remains, unsaleable in world markets except at the expense of vast export subsidies. We end up in a looking-glass world of subsidies to grow corn and subsidies to sell it.
Did the policy ensure that supplies are available to the consumer at reasonable prices? Again, no. The consumer has to pay in the shops the price that reflects the high, subsidised costs of the raw materials, and of course he also has to pay for those subsidies through his taxes—a singular left and a right.
That the CAP needed change has been recognised for many years, of course. However, the CAP is driven by political rather than market aims, and it has taken a long time to have that change recognised and put through. In May 1992, the MacSharry plan came into effect—a sort of CAP Mark II. It introduced price cuts for cereals, beans and oil seeds, with acreage payments as some compensation for those price cuts over a period of years. It also introduced the notion of a compulsory scheme to set aside 15 per cent. of the acreage devoted to cereals, beans and oil seeds. That new scheme will also add a complicated array or bureaucratic quota controls to beef and sheep farming. The dairy system already has a quota which was introduced a few years ago.
Those quota systems add to industry costs, penalise the efficient, and make it even more difficult for new blood to be brought into farming. What effect the CAP Mark II will have remains to be seen, but the signs are not promising. During the four years from 1988 to 1992, according to Ministry figures, dairy farmers' incomes fell by 45 per cent.; cereal farmers' incomes by 75 per cent.; and livestock farmers' incomes by as much as 90 per cent. According to the Country Landowners' Association, farm incomes could continue to fall even further under the new regime.
Some environmental benefits are supposed to be associated with the set-aside scheme. In particular, we were told when it was introduced that we would have wild flower meadows and birds and that it would encourage wild life and so forth. The reality on the ground does not bear that out. I have a farm of some 900 acres, of which 700 acres are arable. We have 100-odd acres of set-aside. I am sorry to say that this year we have already sprayed the set-aside off in April to control noxious weeds so that they do not seed and spoil the following crops. So there is no wildlife, no insect life and certainly no wild flowers. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies she will be able to give an indication of whether there is to be some permanent set-aside scheme considered in the future and whether there are any details of that.
I must touch briefly on the subject of fraud in the EC, although I realise that it is considered in some
474
quarters to be in rather dubious taste to do so. However, as the CAP accounts for some 60 per cent. of the total EC budget and some people estimate that 10 per cent. of the EC budget is lost. in fraud, it is worth mentioning. What measures do the Government have to control fraud on this scale? Are they satisfied that these measures will be effective? Are the Government further satisfied that they have a real measure of control over the decisions taken on the CAP? As I have said, those decisions have been taken for political reasons rather than for market reasons. Are the Government satisfied that the interests of the farmer, the taxpayer and the consumer are best served by remaining subject to the CAP? I suggest that they are not. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that the CAP is possibly one of the most dangerous time bombs ticking gently away over the whole future of the European Community. The Committee has probably heard me banging on about Odessa before now. However, 1 cannot underline my next point too often. As the Committee will be aware, Odessa was the greatest grain exporting port in the world in 1914. The ex-Soviet Union now imports 40 million tonnes of grain a year. At the time of Yeltsin's referendum a man was interviewed on television. He was the head of a collective farm and he said that since privatisation the farm had trebled its output.
The effect on subsidised agricultural world trade of those gantries in Odessa swinging outwards as opposed to inwards is a factor that should be carefully borne in mind. I leave aside the disastrous effect on third world agriculture, whereby with an overvalued! local currency and underpriced corn, people flee from the countryside to live in shanty towns where urban unrest prevails. That causes a total distortion of world trade and a destruction of third world agriculture. leave aside the fact that Japan subsidises its agriculture to the same extent as the European Community. I believe that one can buy rice FOB San. Francisco at about 250 dollars a tonne. The Japanese pay their farmers 2,500 dollars a tonne. That is manic idiocy. The Americans are producing some fruit in California and some sugar in Florida which fetches on the market less money than the cost of the subsidised water to irrigate it.
Some people have mocked President Reagan as being a jolly old buffer with dyed ginger hair. However, he made a really bold projection when he said that what Japan, the European Community and the United States ought to do is to attempt to abolish all agricultural subsidies by the year 2010. That suggestion was laughed to scorn by all the people who considered themselves more intelligent than President Reagan. I believe he was much wiser than most other people under the circumstances.
We must get a grip on this ridiculous CAP whereby the European Community subsidises the production of Greek tobacco and at the same time tries to ban cigarette advertising. Olive oil scandals of enormous scale erupt when it is discovered that the olive trees are growing on the Flammian Way as opposed to in fields.

475
The Mafia takes the end product. Unless we get a grip on the CAP the entire European Community will collapse amid financial disaster. I do not say that as a Euro-sceptic. I have tried to persuade the Committee that I am a Euro-fanatic. I want Europe to work. However, if Europe continues to follow such silly practices, it will not work.
In northern France there are vast plains where immensely efficient grain production is carried out. Those farmers are not the peasant farmers for whom the European Community was established. They are grain barons raking it in. One cannot blame those grain barons for doing so. If someone is silly enough to place a trough in front of someone else's nose, the person who fails to place his snout in the trough is even sillier. If we continue along this path, we are asking for trouble. I do not know what the answer to this problem is but I should like Her Majesty's Government to declare that they will aim for a world subsidy-free agriculture. Prices will find their own level and prosperity will return to the countryside.
If we wish, we can subsidise the gardening and game keeping aspect of agriculture whether that is in Tuscany, Burgundy or East Anglia. However, we cannot allow the idiocies of the common agricultural policy to continue—that applies also to the American and the Japanese price subsidies—without incurring a trade disaster, particularly as the Ukraine is coming back on stream as a world grain producer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Ever since I first became a Member of this Chamber the common agricultural policy has constantly presented itself as a matter over which there has been no profound disagreement. One or two people accept that the common agricultural policy, as originally established, was quite agreeable. However, over the whole party spectrum—this certainly applies right across this Chamber—ever since the beginning there has been agreement on the fact that the common agricultural policy had to be changed. The feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong with it prevails in the Conservative Party and I believe even in the Liberal Party. It certainly prevails in my own party.
It is not difficult to find out why. The policy of the European Economic Community as it then was—and still is so far—was essentially to provide conditions under which, by open and free trading in the Community. conducted mainly by the operation of market forces, trade could prosper. There were, however, differences in emphasis as to how the effect of market forces might be mitigated to some extent. There was general agreement that the dominant theme in the Community was in favour of the operation of market forces. Against this the common agricultural policy stood out like a sore thumb. Everyone knew that it was the complete antithesis of the whole basis of the Community. The CAP was fundamentally wrong because it rigged prices; it erected barriers; it imposed levies of various kinds and it placed all kinds of impediments in the way of free trade in agricultural products.
For a long time, certainly within my memory and even while I was in another place—which is now in the
476
dim and distant past—it has been accepted that the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom, for various vital and strategic reasons (which, incidentally, also apply to coal, but that is another subject) had to be protected. I believe that there was general agreement, which was not always openly expressed in the heat of party battle, that the way to ensure the future of our agricultural industry was through the establishment of some form of price support, by whatever name it might be known. Indeed, Mr. Williams, who was the agriculture Minister in the administration which I had the honour to support and was widely acclaimed across party barriers as being a very sensible Minister, introduced a policy which was best for the farmers and also best for the consumers.
Although there was a cost to the taxpayer in the subsidies made to farmers—and I hasten to reaffirm that such subsidies are taxpayers' money and therefore one has to pay careful regard to the mattc—the effect was not to increase the price to the consumer. The scheme worked quite satisfactorily. There were marginal differences from time to time in the level of support, but that is only to be expected. Then we became members of the European Economic Community and were subject to a totally different regime.
The broad essence of the agriculture regime under which we are now living is that the security of small farmers, in France in particular, was achieved by adopting an interventionist regime. Retail prices were fixed at a high price in order that the appropriate price could be obtained direct by the farmer. That price had to be sustained by taxation.
Our own contribution to the agriculture budget of the Community, which, as the noble Lord said, runs at two-thirds of total EC expenditure, is some £2.5 billion per annum. Therefore, there is a cost to the taxpayer under the existing regime, but there is also an additional cost to the consumer through the price mechanism. The noble Baroness knows as well as I do that according to the Treasury's own figures that means an extra £17 or £18 a week per family of four over and above what they would pay at world prices. In turn that has an impact on wage levels and wage demands, and therefore also has an impact on the inflationary position of the country from time to time.
It is not as though the system provides much advantage to the small farmers of the United Kingdom, as any noble Lord who is acquainted with the whole spectrum of small and medium-sized farms in this country knows perfectly well. In the main it has benefited the large farmers.
As a by-product, the common agricultural policy has had a profound effect on the environment. I was brought up in my youth in the Fen country of Lincolnshire, and to some extent also on the Isle of Ely. In those days when one drove through or travelled through by train, because it was easy to take trains in those days, one could appreciate the countryside. There were even hedges round fields. There were even trees upon which the eye could rest. However, the Fens became great rolling prairies. They

477
have now had to be, or are in the process of being, replanted in their original form. Those have all been the effects of the CAP.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the noble Lord tell us where the hedges were in the Fens of Lincolnshire?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, I can. I can tell the noble Lord where there were a number of hedges. Of course, there are those who hedge politically, and they are another set of characters who may not find the CAP altogether agreeable.
We all know that the common agricultural policy should be changed. When I went to the European Parliament on behalf of your Lordships' House there appeared to be universal agreement about that. Yet, in this Bill and under Article 3(e) of the treaty it is reaffirmed that the policy remains exactly as it was before. Why is that?
In the period since 1975, under governments of both parties, we have not exactly been on the periphery of Europe; we have been at the heart of it. We have been at the heart of Europe for a long time. Our Minister of Agriculture has been to all the agri-council meetings. Our Chancellor of the Exchequer and Financial Secretary have been to all the ECOFIN meetings. We have participated fully in the activities of the Community. Nobody could say that we have been idle. In fact our Ministers, not to mention their civil servants, have been extremely active at the heart of Europe all that time. Therefore, why has the policy not been changed?
There have recently been negotiations in Europe. They took place before the Single European Act and again before Maastricht. I always understood that if one had a strong hand and occupied a very strong position one did not give it away. The strong position of the United Kingdom, particularly over the past 10 years. has been that we have constituted ourselves as a large part of Europe's export market and they cannot do without us. They have to export to the United Kingdom. At present we have a deficit of about £8 billion per annum with the other member states. We are in a strong position. They need us.
Throughout that period the Government have been in a strong position. Why, therefore, did they not exact a price for their continued co-operation at the heart of Europe? Why did they not complain when outrageous demands were made from time to time, for example, for tobacco subsidies which everyone knows are fraudulent in their essence? Why did somebody not dig their heels in, and say, "No. We won't continue with this unless we have some radical reform of the CAP"?
We have a government who are composed largely, and properly, of people with commercial and business experience. They are people who are capable of negotiation. In the light of the fact that we are a net contributor of £2.5 billion per annum, without which the Community could not balance its books, we have been in a strong position. We have been in a such a
478
strong position that from time to time the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, found herself in a position to say: "No, no, no".
In connection with the common agricultural policy, it is high time that some Ministers, bearing in mind the strong position of the United Kingdom and the net contribution which it makes to the European budget, should stand up and say: "No further, unless you reform this policy". Believe me, as soon as that threat is made a more reasonable attitude may be taken towards reform. All that is needed is the will to have it changed, bearing in mind that we have the power to have it changed. We are, have been and will be for some time, by reason of our financial contribution alone, at the heart of Europe. Why can we not do something in regard to reform?
That is why I have raised the subject under Amendment No. 26. Under Title II, Article 3(e) blandly confirms the continued importance of the common agricultural policy. What a whimper with which to go into a conference—merely to do nothing about it. The matter is completely non-party. Any government who reformed the common agricultural policy would have a united nation behind them. They would have the support of the agricultural community, the commercial community and the vast majority of the people of this country. All that is required is the resolve. It is my great regret that that resolve was not shown in the negotiations for the conclusion of the Maastricht Treaty when we had such a good opportunity for doing so.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I wish to take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that in the long run the European Community will find the common agricultural policy too expensive. There is also the argument that that policy will fail for practical reasons. As a landowner and farmer, I believe that we are in a cobweb of Common Market regulations, many of which fail to fit into the unique landholding arrangements that we have in this country. The arrangements for farming and landowning are unique to every country.
Many of the regulations involve prevention of fraud in the Community. When I read the report that the United Kingdom was responsible for 33 per cent. of the fraud in Community's common agricultural policy, I was rather surprised. I had thought that by and large we were an honest lot. However, I then saw that Northern Ireland was responsible for most of that figure. I understand that if one has a frontier which is 300 miles long it is extremely easy to ship material backwards and forward from one side to the other, taking advantage of the different prices.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we now have a frontier which stretches from the Baltic to the Black Sea. That must be some 3,000 miles long. The prices are higher on one side than on the other. How on earth shall we control that frontier? I suppose the Minister will say that the arrangements to prevent fraud in this country will be spread throughout the Community. However, the prevention of fraud not only depends on the honesty of farmers and their inability to commit fraud but also on the honesty and efficiency of the

479
officials who administer the system. I believe that in the end that factor will make the common agricultural policy impossible.
The inclusion of the policy in the treaty seems to indicate that we are now stuck in our current mode until at least 1996. That indicates a paralysis of thought. My firm belief is that farming and all the issues attached to it are of national interest. Such matters should be taken out of international negotiation and handed back to the countries to which they belong. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on the progress of the common agricultural policy.
Lord Eatwell: I wish to reiterate some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, and to confirm the Labour Party's opposition to the continuation of the common agricultural policy, which we believe is highly damaging both to agriculture in this country and indeed to the development of British industry.
The connection with industry follows directly from the impact on industrial wages of the higher agricultural prices for foodstuffs within the Community which then feed through into industrial costs. As the Committee will know, the same effect was encountered under the corn laws which made British industry less efficient at the beginning of the 19th century. The abolition of the corn laws was followed by one of the most successful periods of industrial expansion and agricultural prosperity in British history. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will correct me if my historical facts are wrong.
The abolition of the common agricultural policy system, which has been maintaining high agricultural and food prices within Europe, would similarly benefit British industry. Indeed, the effect on industrial competitiveness would massively outweigh any costs associated with the social chapter which the Prime Minister has said is so damaging to British industry.
I wish to remind the Committee that the common agricultural policy results in bizarre income transfers throughout the Community with some of the richest countries receiving transfers from some of the poorer countries because some of the poorer countries are forced to pay much higher agricultural prices than they otherwise would in order to support agriculture in the richer countries. That notion of transfer from poor to rich is dramatically emphasised in Eastern Europe, an area to which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred. One of the most extraordinary characteristics of the Community's policy towards Eastern Europe is the various restrictions which have been imposed on the ability of the Eastern European countries to sell to the West the only goods they have to sell. That is a recipe for continuing depression in Eastern Europe, and for linking democracy with depression. It would be a disaster if that link were made in the minds of the people of Eastern Europe.
The noble Earl also referred to the link with development policy. That is another aspect of the distribution from poor to rich. I remember that when Mr. Chris Patten held the post now held by the noble
480
Baroness, Lady Chalker, he spoke actively against the common agricultural policy even though it was the policy of the government of which he was a member.
If we remove the common agricultural policy, what system do we put in its place? What agricultural policy would be appropriate for the European Community, and for Britain? There is no doubt whatever that the old deficiency payment system was extremely efficient in its time. That system was not abolished because of entry into the European Community. Its abolition was contained in the Conservative Party manifesto of 1970 which specifically argued that the cost of the agricultural policy should be shifted from the taxpayer to the consumer. One gathers therefore that the Conservative Party was rather pleased with the introduction of the common agricultural policy since tariffs on food were exactly what it proposed in the 1970 manifesto.
Interesting and entertaining as those facts may be, they have absolutely nothing to do with the amendment proposed to the Committee. The amendment simply removes Article 3(e) which states that there should be,
"a common policy in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries".
It does not state that there should be the common agricultural policy which is currently in place. Do the proposers of the amendment seriously suggest that we would not be interested in having a common policy in Europe? For example, would they like high subsidies to agriculture to be allowed in other European countries against which our own farmers could not compete? Surely, if we are to have free trade in food throughout the Community, and indeed wider free trade, it is desirable to have a common policy for agriculture in Europe even though the common agricultural policy as currently formulated is so foolish and damaging.
I also suggest to the proposers of the amendment and those who oppose the Bill as a whole that this is a fine example —indeed perhaps the finest example —of why we need to be in the European Community from the beginning. If Britain had been in it from 1956, we should not have had this nonsense of the common agricultural policy. That is why it is so important for Britain to be involved in the evolution of the European Community institutions right at the heart of Europe, as defined by the Bill, leaving aside the silly protocols which the Government seem to have agreed for party political purposes.
Returning to the amendment, it has nothing to do with the common agricultural policy and, therefore, I suggest that it be rejected.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The reason the amendment was put down is that it is a perfectly legitimate hook on which to hang a discussion of the idiocies of the common agricultural policy. That is why one is talking about it. Of course, we will not divide on something like that, but it is a fundamentally important subject which we should talk about and on occasions we have to use procedural devices to get one's oar in, to use a slang expression.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I had not intended to say anything on this amendment, but I wish to point out to a number of speakers that the common agricultural policy is now in the process of reform. I agree that it has had appalling results all over the world because of the dumping of food, spoiling the prospects of farmers from New Zealand exporting to eastern countries. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that the process, according to the M acSharry Plan, will be a transfer of tax payment from the consumer to the taxpayer. That is going ahead at the moment all over Europe and it might have been mentioned by previous speakers.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: As a former farmer who is glad that he is not in farming today, I wish to add a few words to the discussion. It seems to me, from my memory of farming, that set-aside is about the crudest policy that anyone could contrive. Surely it must be immoral, not to say wicked, deliberately to prevent a farmer from using his land for food production. A policy which results in that must be wrongly conceived and I agree with all previous speakers about that. Surely, it should be possible for something to be thought up other than that one-third, or whatever proportion it is, of people's land should be put down to growing thistles and weeds. That is incredible.
Last November I was in Poland on an IPU visit. The one message that came over loud and clear from all the people in the Polish Government, civil servants and so on to whom we talked was that they wanted to be in the European Community by the year 2000. However, when I see the Bill before us I ask myself why. I have asked them why too, because when I travel through the beautiful Polish countryside I wonder whether the peasants want to see 20 per cent., or whatever it is, of their land down to thistles. I think that there would be a revolution over there if they tried to do that.
I have heard rumours, on which perhaps my noble friend will comment, that helicopters are covering every square inch of Britain to make sure that farmers comply with the set-aside regulations—that is using spy planes; Big Brother is watching our farmers. I should be glad to hear that that is not true, and perhaps my noble friend could comment.
Lord John-Mackie: As a farmer who is just looking forward to his 66th harvest, I have considerable experience of what happens when farming is not helped in one way or another. I started farming in 1927 and I moved from Aberdeenshire to Kincardineshire in 1930. I drove 20 acres of my predecessor's potatoes into a quarry hole because there was no demand for them. That same year, my middle brother—not junior over there on the Liberal Democrat Benches—started farming on a dairy farm. He was pouring gallons of milk down the drain because there was no demand for it.
Anyone who farmed from 1927 until the early 1930s would realise what assistance should be given if people want food produced. I agree strongly with the previous speaker about set-aside in a world where 1,500 million people are starving. Many of the speakers, except the last one on this side of the
482
Committee, did not say what they would do. All they want is to get rid of something, but they do not suggest what they would replace it with. I am certain that the best system—and this could be arranged in each country—is deficiency payments. It would solve many problems and it is easy to administer.
Lord Plumb: I rise to oppose Amendment No. 26. From some of the comments I have heard so far, I find it difficult to understand what it has to do with the Maastricht Treaty. Of course, aspects in the treaty are important for agriculture and agriculture is very much part of the overall economy. Under the objectives laid down in Article 39 of the treaty, as concerns the CAP there will be further regulation on prices. That has already been clearly declared in the reform of the common agricultural policy set out over the next five or six-year period. Common rules will be laid down quite clearly on competition, and that is difficult as regards the whole community. There will be co-ordination of national market organisation, and, if we are to achieve stability, it will be extremely important. Machinery will be put in place for stabilising imports and dealing with exports, as well as dealing with discrimination between producers and consumers and producers or consumers.
One of the main objectives of the present common agricultural policy—not the past policy, about which we have heard so much in the past half hour—is to try to combat fraud.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will my noble friend give way? He referred to Article 39 of the treaty and all the wonderful things that the common agricultural policy will do. Is he aware that Article 39 remains unchanged from the Single European Act and, indeed, I fancy, the Treaty of Rome? Would he care to explain to the Committee why nothing has been done about it so far if it will be done in the future?
Lord Plumb: I am aware that the objectives as set out are unchanged and I am aware of the problems of the past. I think that no one has been more involved than I have in trying to bring about the necessary reforms to meet the efficiency which we see in agriculture, particularly British agriculture, compared with the rest of the Community. But, ultimately, the present reform of the common agricultural policy sets out to reduce expenditure. Again, no one has been more critical than I in recent times of the cost of the common agricultural policy as to the part of the expenditure which goes to farmers. Much of it has gone out in export restitution and has merely benefited the few individuals who have been involved in the export of the surplus products. Dealing with those surpluses over the years has been irresponsible in many senses and we are now trying to bring them under control. I certainly do not defend the indefensible. That would be a totally wrong approach.
Let us be positive. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said very clearly, had we been in at the beginning, we might have been shaping events rather than just reacting to them, which has been the case in recent times. In the context of this debate, we are dealing

483
with a Bill and not dealing with the reform of the common agricultural policy, which, I submit, is a major subject for further debate in the future.
I was very surprised at the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, over the past three days. I listened to him with great interest and learned quite a lot. Therefore I also listened to him with great interest today. I was rather surprised and somewhat disappointed that he did not refer again to a point that I have heard him make in the past; namely, that the cost of the common agricultural policy to an average family of four in the United Kingdom is an increase of £16 per week, a figure which I know the noble Lord has used on many occasions. I had intended to compliment the noble Lord the other day, when I abused the courtesy of the House by not obeying the rules—I therefore offer my apologies, particularly to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will appreciate, one cannot be precise on the cost of a policy when one is dealing with living and growing things. The noble Lord has said today that agriculture in the United Kingdom has seen changes and expansion over the years. One point which we have perhaps ignored is the development in technology that has taken place over those years, and which has changed the volume of production, the work of the plant breeders, scientists and all who are concerned in that particular business. The vagaries of the weather often have an even worse effect than the vagaries of the politicians.
In the context of Maastricht agriculture is very much part of the economy. Food is very much a part of the household budget. It is also of key importance in the current round of GATT talks as we look at the world scene. That we must do from the Community outwards; and we must look inwards too. The two big players, the United States and ourselves, are now among the 108 countries involved in those talks. It is imperative that we get this matter right and that we try to get it fair.
Regarding the extra cost of the CAP of which we are so critical, I have sympathy with the points made earlier by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. I am a farmer and I well understand the points that the noble Lord made. Those increased costs include processing and distribution subsidies, which are still there. We still have support for transport, electricity and telephones in rural areas—an addition to the cost of the common agricultural policy—we have encouragement for the cessation of milk production; and we have the unrealistic assumption that world prices would not change if the common agricultural policy were abolished.
There is an exaggeration inherent in the estimate of costs that can be demonstrated quite clearly if we look separately at the United Kingdom. I hope that Members of the Committee will bear with me for a moment if I quote a few figures to explain what I mean. It is difficult to go back to 1991 because there has been considerable change since then, but in 1991 the transfer from the taxpayer directly to the farmer was £1,959 million, or £34 per head. On a weekly basis that is 65p per week, or £2.60 for a family of four. If
484
one divides the 57.6 million population who live in the United Kingdom into families of four, there would be 14.4 million families, which shows an estimate of £16 extra, which amounts to something like £9,900 million.
In 1991 United Kingdom farmers sold output value at just over £12 billion, of which nearly £9 billion was for products which were supported by the common agricultural policy. We imported £3.5 billion which were influenced by the common agricultural policy. That is an overall total of about £12.5 billion—a fall of 80 per cent. On the basis of the rise in world prices which I predict will take place against the reduction of export subsidies, it is estimated that there will be an overall fall of some 10 per cent., which may be more realistic. If that were passed on to the consumer, there would be a once-and-for-all reduction in the price of food of 2.5 per cent. The average household spends £43 per week on food. That would therefore be a reduction of £1.05p. Forgive me for using those figures in these few words, but I thought they might appeal to the eminent accountants among us.
I believe, therefore, that if we ratify Maastricht—indeed, if we reject Maastricht we have problems—we can get on with the important issues and the job of reform. I merely submit, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said very clearly yesterday, that while it is the job of the Commission to propose, and for the European Parliament to consider and to recommend disposal, or for the Council of Ministers to dispose at the end of the day, there are those of us who are not without ideas for reform. Now that we have started along that particular route, I hope that we are given the opportunity to continue that reform so that we bring a little bit of common sense to what has not been a common agricultural policy.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord sits down, since he has been kind enough to involve me in his argument, will he explain—as one who is held in very high regard throughout the entire farming community and who is not without his influence—why, if the fundamentals of the common agricultural policy are wrong (the noble Lord has been a little ambivalent on this matter; at one time I thought that he did not like them, while another time he sought to justify them) he has not used his influence during these past many years to effect some changes in Articles 38 to 47 of the Treaty of Rome, which remains amazingly unamended by the treaty that was negotiated at Maastricht?
Lord Plumb: Thinking back over the past three days, the noble Lord will remember the comments, many of which he himself made, about the sham parliament which is in Strasbourg. Perhaps it is because that parliament does not have the responsibility that it might have had in the past that we find ourselves in this situation. Therefore I submit that if we ratify the Maastricht Treaty it gives us a little more responsibility, so that those of us who are directly elected to that House can work together more closely with parliamentarians at national level to bring about

485
those changes that I have believed in for so long. Therefore the pressure that I have used over that period of time has perhaps not been as effective as it might have been. But I submit that if we ratify Maastricht that will give us an opportunity.
Lord Vinson: I hesitate to come into this battle of giants, but this clause is important. It gives us a chance to examine what some believe is a triumph of idealism over reality when it comes to the trading advantages that come from being a member of the EC. As we are singularly focusing on agriculture, perhaps I may also bring into the discussion the subject of fish, which is normally allied with it.
Let us stand back and see what has happened. We have given away most of our fishing grounds and impoverished our fishing industry in order to show that we are good Community-spirited people, even though we are not yet at the heart of Europe, which is what Maastricht is intended to accomplish. We have reduced substantially our output of milk, when we are one of the world's most efficient and finest milk producers; so this country is in milk deficit. Moreover, because of the nature, size and scale of our farms, we, of all nations, are taking out more good agricultural land from wheat production pro rata than any other country in Europe. While we are on the outside and have not yet signed up to Maastricht, we bend over backwards to show that we are good Europeans.
I ask my noble friend the Minister, if we finally get into Maastricht, whether we shall continue to wish to prove that we are even better Europeans. I can envisage that British natural self-interest—the EC's foundations are based on competitive trade founded on natural advantage—will continue to be eroded by gestures made to the others to show how good we are and now that we are at the heart of things we are even better than before. Can my noble friend reassure us that once we are there, perhaps our attitude will change and we shall begin to put Britain first?
Lord Swinfen: Coupled with the amendments that we are discussing with regard to agriculture, I propose to deal in this group with industrial, consumer and commercial issues. I should like to take the Committee to that area for a Few moments and in particular to Amendment No. 419 which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Beloff and myself.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He has raised an important point on which I should like guidance from the Government Front Bench. So far we have been debating agriculture. It had been my hope that we would debate exactly the topics on which the noble Lord now wishes to speak. Certainly I wish to do so. I wonder whether the Government Front Bench would say whether they find it more convenient first to reply on the subject of agriculture and we could then deal with what I and perhaps other noble Lords consider more important; or whether we are to go drifting into other subjects and so on. I am not sure what the noble Viscount proposes to do but it might be helpful, for the sake of the Committee, if we knew what was happening at this time.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite. It might be a good idea to have a reply on agricultural subjects before we conclude this group of amendments. Then perhaps we could have a further debate and further speeches. I hope it will be to the convenience of the Committee if I resume the House at the end of this group, so that the Statement can be taken.
Lord Cockfield: Perhaps I may make a brief comment on the agricultural matter in order to meet the wishes of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I had given way to my noble friend because I thought that he was going to say something about agriculture as well. There is a very serious problem with the common agricultural policy. I am sure we all believe that serious reform is needed. The problem is how to deal with it in the circumstances that we face.
I want to say a few words about the origin of the common agricultural policy because my recollection of the matter is somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. The common agricultural policy was always regarded as the marriage contract of the Community. That is to say, it was the agreement between France and Germany under which France opened up her markets to German industry and in return Germany paid to support French agriculture. That is the basic situation which remains today, apart from the fact that we have now picked up a large part of the bill. Unless it is realised that there is that nexus, one will never understand what goes on in the common agricultural policy.
I should like to make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, whose views on this matter are always most vigorous. When my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister (Mr. Peter Walker was the Minister Of Agriculture and I also was a member of the Cabinet), she tried to veto a grossly excessive price increase. I hate to use the modern popular phrase, but she was told to get lost; and that is exactly what happened.
On the next occasion it was Chancellor Kohl of Germany who decided to veto a cut in the subsidy for cereals. My noble friend Lady Thatcher decided that she would not try to exercise a veto to prevent Chancellor Kohl stopping a reduction in the cost of the CAP. So what happened on two occasions, admittedly separated by two or three years, was that my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who after all is just as formidable a character as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on the first occasion was forced to quit the field and on the second occasion decided not to stand and fight.
I wonder whether in those circumstances the very vigorous proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that we should place our fist underneath the noses of the other 11 member states is likely to be successful. There is no difference between the noble Lord and myself in wanting to reform the CAP, reduce the cost of the CAP and to reduce or even stop fraud. But I believe that it has to be approached in a slightly more subtle way than the noble. Lord proposes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may intervene since once again he has raised my name in connection with this matter. Will he exert his prodigious memory, which is one of the most extraordinary memories that I have ever encountered in my life, to tell the Committee his recollection of the events of May 1982 when an attempt was made to exercise the veto on the whole question of agricultural prices?
Lord Cockfield: I believe that is precisely the occasion to which I was referring when we tried to use the veto. I deliberately did not mention a date. I hoped that the noble Lord would fill in the date. I hope that he has got it right. We are certainly talking about the same incident. It was the occasion on which we tried to exercise the so-called Luxembourg veto and we were overridden by the other member states.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am very glad to have the noble Lord's confirmation, which I was fishing for, in his reply that we tried to exercise a veto and the veto was of no use.
Lord Morris: If my noble friend Lord Cockfield, as he has just suggested, believes that my noble friend Lady Thatcher was so monumentally unsuccessful in influencing the form of the common agricultural policy, how can he believe in the insistence that it is essential that the Maastricht Treaty be ratified in order for us to be in the heart of Europe and to influence it? In particular, he said that holding one's fist up against the reform of the agricultural policy just will not work. I cannot see how he can reconcile those positions.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: I do not know whether it is in order for me to respond to that comment. I have not said that reform of the common agricultural policy will not work. There has recently been a substantial measure of reform. My point is a simple one. We have to be at the heart of Europe if we are to exercise any influence. It is only by taking an active—and we hope a positive—part in Europe that we shall ever succeed in obtaining any reform in the common agricultural policy. But it must be done by diplomacy and persuasion. It cannot be done by the exercise of strong arm tactics.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I may interrupt and ask for guidance for myself, if not for others. It was suggested that my noble friend on the Front Bench would reply on the questions of agriculture before we went on to the other subjects that are grouped with it. Am I right in thinking that there will be a reply on agriculture and, before my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke makes up his mind what to do, we will go on to the other, totally unrelated, subjects? Will my noble friend then make up his mind on agriculture and not on any of the other subjects, or will we come back to the other subjects when speaking on another amendment rather than Amendment No. 22? If so, what amendment will we come back on?
Baroness Trumpington: It is my understanding that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will speak initially on the agriculture question. That will not prohibit any debate on other matters in the grouped amendments. There will then be a final decision taken as to what the mover of the group of amendments wants to do with Amendment No. 22. We can then go on with the Statement.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to confuse the matter. However, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, was supposed to be speaking to Amendment No. 22, which has nothing whatever to do with agriculture. It concerns trade policy. I hope therefore—I say this indirectly to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby—that he does not reflect on what he wants to do with Amendment No. 22. He has not yet spoken to that amendment, which has nothing to do with the subject about which he spoke. In other words, I take it that we will have an opportunity to consider trade policy, which is what I want to discuss.
Lord Jay: Will the noble Baroness also take into account that when we have heard the answer on agriculture from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, there may be others who will wish to speak further on it?
Baroness Trumpington: It is my noble friend Lord Ullswater who will be speaking on agriculture. There is nothing to stop any Member speaking over and over again if they so wish.
Lord Tebbit: Before we leave the subject of the common agricultural policy I should like to pick up the extraordinarily wise words of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. He described—I use my own words—a Franco-German conspiracy against the public interest of the citizens of the Community, particularly against those of the United Kingdom and, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, the citizens of the world.
We are told that these matters can only be resolved by our being at the heart of Europe. We have been at the heart of Europe, in so far as Brussels is at the heart—my geography teacher would have said it was somewhat nearer to Prague, but leave that aside—for some 23 years. All that we have discovered in that time is that there is a Franco-German conspiracy which could not be broken by the determination of the "iron lady"; it has not been broken by the determination of my noble friend Lord Cockfield as a commissioner, and is not likely to be broken by anyone else.
It is a conspiracy on a grand scale and one which is not only appallingly damaging to the people of Europe who are paying higher prices for their food than is necessary, but also appallingly damaging to the economies of many third world countries with whom we should be trading and from whom we should be buying such products as sugar; instead, we grow our own excessively expensive sugar. Those are countries with whom we should be constructively trading and not on whom we should be dumping agricultural products which destroy their agriculture.
Is it any wonder that such countries turn to us looking for aid? Why do we not give them trade? Why do we not allow them the dignity of producing

489
commodities which we need and which they can produce more effectively, more efficiently and at a lower cost than we can, to our mutual benefit. It is a conspiracy against the interests of the peoples of the world.
I know that my noble friend Lord Beloff will wish to speak later about the effect on GATT. But we all know why the Uruguay Round is in disarray. I will say no more than that it is primarily because of agricultural subsidies. As in Yugoslavia, no one in this conflict is all good. But we can see in the activities of France, in the way that she has influenced the European attitude towards GATT, who is the principal miscreant in this further conspiracy against the world.
I will not go further into that matter because my noble friend Lord Beloff will wish to do so and we should not make these debates unduly repetitive. However, a week or two ago we had a debate on the tobacco subsidy. One of the reasons given for the subsidy of that noxious weed is that there are communities within the European Community which grow it and whose particular circumstances would make it difficult for them to find another crop to grow. If they were denied the subsidy to grow the stuff, which is too noxious even to burn in an Irish peat burning power station, they would be distressed communities.
If we applied that argument to the coalmining communities of the North-East of England, Wales or Scotland, this country would look very different. After all, they are communities which are finding it extremely difficult to find alternative work. I might add that the product of their labours is essentially useful and not essentially dangerous. But they are mere English, Scots and Welsh coalminers; they are not to be treated with the same kid glove approach as Greek tobacco farmers.
Where is the equity? Where is the sense of being cornmunautaire? Where is the social cohesion in those matters? We come to a matter of altogether different scale, one that could be resolved with 10 minutes of the time of a few commissioners and perhaps a Minister or two—set-aside. Let me say in passing that I find the whole concept of set-aside extraordinary and offensive.
I put it in a different context. In this kingdom we have a distressed building and construction industry and a surplus of office space. I await a proposal for set-aside for office buildings. If we were willing to pay £15 per square foot to the developers of Canary Wharf provided that they locked the doors and admitted no one the proposal would be quite absurd. Your Lordships may laugh. It is only absurd because we are talking about office space as opposed to tobacco, agriculture and fields. We acknowledge the absurdity and wrongness of the set-aside policy into which we have been forced by virtue of the CAP.
Let us consider the minor absurdity. Why must all fields that have been put to set-aside be mown by the same (late, whether they are in the far Scottish islands or on the Mediterranean coast? That is a form of cohesion which I do not go along with. As a result, we have a Community that has environmental policies for
490
the protection of wildlife. We know how enthusiastic it is. It will try to prevent us from shooting crows and magpies while leaving the Italians free to shoot anything with feathers that flies—and now and again each other—during the shooting season.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Not enough!
Lord Tebbit: My noble friend says "Not enough". Some noble Lords know that even here there are little accidents on shooting occasions. Why within a matter of days can we not have agreement—or even a unilateral statement—by the Government that they will not take notice of the day on which fields that are set aside are to be mown? Why should we not leave it until the end of August, if that is the appropriate date here? After all, our German friends have just made an illegal trade deal with the United States. We all turn our eyes away from it and pretend that it has not happened. Can we not expect our partners in the Community to turn their eyes away frorn the British Government doing something in the interests of the environment and wildlife?
I understand that more than one Member of the Cabinet is passionately devoted to the sport of birdwatching. Can they not somehow use their influence to prevent this needless destruction of wildlife? Is it something too trivial to bother about or a problem that is too great to be solved? Instead, we are intent on inventing such things as milk quotas. Who would have thought that one of the most profitable activities in agriculture would entail leavine one's fields untilled and selling each other milk quotas, not milk? These are the politics of a madhouse—a madhouse that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has said is there solely for the benefit of two nations in the Community.
Is it not time that someone somewhere said no—even if it is entirely symbolic, such as a vote today for Amendment No. 26? Even if your Lordships were to say that such was the lunacy of these matters that Amendment No. 26 should be voted for, not for what it stood for but to show your Lordships' horror, displeasure, disgust and alarm at these matters, it would be only matter of an afternoon in the other place before the damn thing was put back in again in order that the treaty could be ratified. The treaty would still be ratified well before the German constitutional court had reached a conclusion as to whether it violated the constitution. Some noble Lords may be tempted down that path.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have listened with great interest to his speech. I recollect that he voted for the Treaty of Rome, campaigned in the referendum for ratification and was a Minister when the Single European Act was passed. Did he never say no?
Lord Tebbit: Of course I did those things. However, the noble Lord must not assume that we all go through life resolutely resolved to refuse to learn from our experiences. I voted for those measures, not least the European Communities Act, on the basis that if

491
we were at the heart of Europe we would be able to resolve these matters. I voted for the Single European Act, not least on the assurances of my noble friend Lady Chalker that the Luxembourg compromise was intact and the veto remained in place. She gave the same assurance the other day on Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Cockfield had just reminded us that it is intact as long as one is French or German. That is a compromise which does not seem to extend across the Channel. I do not know whether the noble Lord has learnt anything in the past 20-odd years.
Lord Bonham-Carter: No.
Lord Tebbit: I have learnt that possibly being at the heart of Europe is not sufficient to resolve these problems.
Before I sit down I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply to the debate what the objective is of Her Majesty's Government in respect of agricultural policy. Is it to eliminate subsidy? Is it to return to the concept of subsidising the consumer as opposed to the producer? Is it to ensure that there is some kind of level playing field? Is it even that one day they will veto something and see the veto work? Does the Minister share my view that above all we should remember that subsidies almost inevitably will raise the cost of production and eventually the price of the commodity that is subsidised?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Beloff: While the Minister ponders on his reply to those penetrating questions, I should like to take up one point made earlier in the debate relating to agriculture. (I shall deal later with the question of GATT.) The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, gave us a talk about the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition on this matter, betraying their total contradictions. Mistaking your Lordships' Chamber for a Cambridge lecture hall, he then left the Chamber. Therefore, in his absence I have to answer a point that he made. I can do so because it has been repeated by my noble friend Lord Plumb. I refer to the repeated claim by the Europhiles that, if we had gone into the European Community at the time of its creation in the 1950s, all would have been different and we would have managed to steer its fortunes in a direction suited to our policies.
I do not argue economics with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, or even with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but as a professional historian I point out that it is always possible to say how things would have been if they had been different. For instance, let us suppose that Nelson had failed to win the Battle of Trafalgar.
Lord Tebbit: The French say that he did.
Lord Beloff: The French cannot be right, because if the French were right we would not need the Maastricht Treaty. If Napoleon had won that battle we would have been part of a Continental protectionist commercial bloc and it would not have been necessary for M. Delors and his friends, nearly 200 years later, to make up for what Napoleon or his admirals failed to do. That is just as relevant an
492
historical argument as to say that if we had done something different the result would have been the other way.
What many people have been waiting for—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has rather discouraged them from continuing to wait—is an explanation of why, in the light of the fact that since our membership became actual we have failed to move the Community, or failed to move it in more than a fairly limited direction, towards a saner policy on agriculture, we think that we could have done it before. Indeed, as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, there never was a hope of it, even if we had been among the original participants. Therefore, I wish people would stop that particular argument which I find distressing and irrelevant. What we need to know—and now there is a chance for my noble friend the Minister to tell us—is how the Government intend to proceed to bring the rest of the Community round to our view on agricultural policy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like the Minister to respond to one or two small points on fisheries when he comes to reply. The noble Viscount will know that Scottish fishermen have been blockading ports and that south-west fishermen have been occupying MAFF offices because they are not satisfied with what has been happening in the fishing industry. They believe that they have had a raw deal. They believe that foreign fishing fleets have been given opportunities to fish in our waters which they do not have themselves. Our shipbuilding industry, in respect of fishing vessels, is virtually defunct whereas those of other members of the EEC are in fact thriving. It behoves the noble Viscount when he comes to reply to give attention not only to agricultural matters, which have been very well and thoroughly discussed by many Members of the Committee, but also to the fishing industry, which has been brought so low as to be almost non-existent and where the Government are telling fishermen for the first time in history when they may fish and what they may fish for. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give some of the replies which were asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): We have spent a considerable time discussing but one amendment out of a group which includes a lot of areas which I know Members of the Committee would like to discuss. So I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I am moderately brief in my comments.
I say to my noble friend that I shall have to resist Amendment No. 26. I believe that Community activity in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries is unchanged by the Maastricht Treaty. It is legitimate and important for the Community to have common policies in agriculture and fisheries, given the fact that member states had their own support systems for agriculture before the European Community was formed. Therefore, a common policy, rather than a common agricultural policy, for free trade in agricultural products between member states is a very important one.

493
I understand why my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and many others exercise their frustrations about the workings of the CAP. I believe that to be quite natural. My noble friend itemised the fact that there is a subsidy for growing wheat, another subsidy for storing it and another subsidy for selling it. It may he that all these extra costs could benefit the farmer rather than other people.
My noble friend Lord Onslow called the CAP ridiculous and drew our attention to the support for the Greek tobacco industry, the olive oil lakes and set-aside. My noble friend Lord Tebbit wanted to extend set-aside to office buildings in the City. Perhaps he is right, but I would not agree with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, quite rightly, that there is general agreement that the CAP should be reformed. He said that it rigged prices, erected barriers and was generally of a protective nature. He indicated that it was a high cost to the taxpayer to support agriculture and that it was a high cost to the consumer for the price of the goods that it produces. But I believe that it is important that Maastricht should reaffirm the principle—the amendment concerns the principle—that agriculture and fisheries should be a Community activity because it is within the Community activities that we have a chance of reforming the CAP.
My noble friend asked why we did not take the opportunity to reform the CAP in the negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty. I believe that the reform of the CAP which was undertaken in 1992 is the right way of proceeding. It does not need the Maastricht Treaty to reform the CAP. The CAP is being reformed under the old Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. There is nothing now in the Maastricht Treaty which will assist with the reform of the CAP.
It is important to reflect on some of the comments that were made during the course of the debate and especially on those made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. My noble friend Lord Cockfield pointed out that the CAP existed when we joined the European Community. At the time that we joined we had to accept the Community as it had developed. My noble friend pointed out the history and origin of the CAP. He pointed to the marriage contract between Germany and France at the time that this was done. He also gave us the indication which I believe we all understand. He indicated that there really are serious problems with the CAP and how we should set out to deal with them. We have managed to get the reform of the CAP on the agenda and have made progress with it. I believe that that shows the advantage of our being in Europe. If we had been in from the start perhaps we would have been in a position to ensure that the CAP did not develop as it is. But my noble friend Lord Beloff would take a different view from that. Anyway, I would again have to say that it has little to do with the Maastricht Treaty as it is.
My noble friend Lord Plumb, with his lifelong experience of farming and farming politics, as the president of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, has worked more than anyone else in your
494
Lordships' House and for many years to improve the working of the CAP, and even when he was president of the European Parliament.
I do not believe that anyone would quibble that United Kingdom agriculture has been most successful since our entry into the Common Market. Structural reforms are required, but United Kingdom agriculture has been very successful during that period. From the Front Bench opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said that he opposed the CAP. He explained that by the income transfers from the poor to the rich countries the CAP policy was doing neither any good. He pointed out that it would be worsened by the introduction into the EC of countries in Central Europe. He asked what should be put in its place. I. believe that he and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, wish to go back to the deficiency payments policy that existed prior to entry into the Common Market.
The noble Lord put the point that the important thing to consider is the alternative. Do we want a free-for-all on agricultural prices in the Common Market? Do we want to allow other countries within Europe to decide their prices when this would greatly affect our own farmers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that Amendment No. 26 has nothing to do with Maastricht because it seeks to leave out Article 3(e) which calls for such a common policy. I believe that noble Lords have been aiming at the wrong target.
The reform of the CAP is a very interesting subject. I do not believe that it is a subject that we should be addressing today when we are considering amendments to the Bill. However, Members of the Committee have said that they wish to discuss it because it is reaffirmed as a principal article in the Maastricht Treaty. I am therefore dealing with it on that basis.
5 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. Is he aware that the reason why the amendment was moved for the deletion of Article 3(e) is precisely because the negotiating procedures up to the achievement of the Maastricht agreement did not include any amendment to Articles 38 to 47 of the Treaty of Rome? Had those articles been changed by negotiation by our own Government at the heart of Europe and if agreement reached on other matters concerning Maastricht had been conditional on fundamental changes to Articles 38 to 47 of the treaty, then we should not have moved for the deletion of Article 3(e). There would have been some change. It is precisely because there has been no change that the moving of this particular amendment is designed to draw the attention of the public to the fact that despite being at the heart of Europe for so long, no real effort has been made to secure a negotiated change to Articles 38 to 47 of the Treaty of Rome.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord makes the false point that he made earlier in the debate. The only reason for the inclusion of Article 3(e) in the current

495
treaty is that it mentions fisheries which it did not before. Fisheries were always dealt with under Article 38. But, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, there has been no amendment to the subsequent articles.
A number of Members of the Committee have called for reform of the CAP. That has been a government objective and they have succeeded in getting it on the European Community agenda. The reform process began in 1992. What it seeks to achieve—I believe that these are the answers to my noble friends Lord Tebbit and Lord Beloff—is significantly to cut prices and to move the CAP closer to world prices, and to reduce the role of intervention, making the CAP more market orientated. It shows the benefit of being in Europe arguing our case, which I believe is a step in the right direction. The ratification of Maastricht—
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I must emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and also by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. The CAP is a Franco-German conspiracy for their particular benefit. We have now all agreed on that. They wanted a single currency at Maastricht. Was there not then an historic opportunity missed to say, "You cannot continue to play with your special toy, the CAP, for your exclusive benefit in the way you do if you also want us to give you another toy for your benefit". Is not that what negotiation and being at the heart of Europe are about? Having given them a new toy, and one which we did not want, do we not then find that we are still stuck with the CAP?
Viscount Ullswater: That is a peculiar way of arguing a policy which has been in Britain's best interest for a number of years. I agree that the CAP needs reform, but the proposal has been put forward that we should do without a common policy in agriculture. The noble Lord shakes his head, but that is what he is trying to argue; namely, that we should not have a common policy in agriculture and certainly not the CAP. I understand the two to be different, but we need to make certain that the one becomes the other.
Maastricht ratification would allow us to continue to press for those reforms; otherwise I believe that we would be entirely marginalised from the debate. I am conscious that time has elapsed. I believe it is right to wind up this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that the detailed provisions of the common agricultural policy and not the existence of a common policy itself have created problems for the Community. The details are no part of the EC treaty and can be changed without treaty amendments. I have indicated to noble Lords that reform has started and that the Government are committed to further reform.
Maastricht explicitly adds fisheries to the existing treaty list of common policies. My noble friend Lord Vinson and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about fishery policies. My noble friend said that we had given away our fishing grounds. We have shared them and rationalised. We have had to rationalise the
496
catches in international waters between the countries because effectively the stocks were being grossly overfished. What has happened in the recent past is the provision of a method for protecting albeit our diminished fishing industry in order that the period of gross over-fishing should not continue.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether my noble friend will give way. I understood that it was the scientific and bureaucratic mind which had decided that fishing stocks were being brought to an all-time low. Can my noble friend comment on a report in a newspaper last week which stated that there are now record numbers of, I believe, coley, which have been thrown back into the sea in tens of thousands? In fact, the scientists got it wrong.
Viscount Ullswater: The important fact is that because of the policies which we have had in place for a number of years, the catches have recovered. Therefore, the industry can continue. It looked as though at one time—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: But it cannot. That is the point. The industry is being stopped from continuing.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that to be untrue. The important thing is that the stocks should recover in order that the future of the fishing industry should be protected. If we fish the stocks out, the industry will collapse altogether.
I believe that it is time now for my noble friend to make up his mind whether he wants to press—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Ullswater:—or withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: If the Minister will give way, I thought that we had agreed that the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, spoke had absolutely nothing to do with agriculture. If he withdraws his amendment, we cannot go on to debate what some of us want to debate, so I beg the noble Lord under no circumstances even to consider withdrawing his amendment. We should like to discuss some other issues.
Viscount Ullswater: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee. I repeat that I believe that the Government are dealing with the problems of the common agricultural policy in the right way, and I ask my noble friend to reflect on that.
Lord Jay: The Minister has made an extraordinarily depressing speech. I shall make only two comments. First, all he was able to tell us about the common agricultural policy was that after 20 years the Government have got it on to the agenda. He then made the astonishing statement that it had contributed to the prosperity of this country during the past few years. If he thinks that, well, there is not the time now to reply in the way that one would wish to reply to such an extraordinary statement.
Secondly, however, at least the debate has achieved one thing. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has made clear that what being at the heart of Europe really

497
means is not merely that we achieve nothing in the common agricultural policy but that other countries have a veto and this country has not.
Noble Lords: Statement!
5.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I doubt whether we can go on to the Statement. We have not yet dealt with the amendment that is being discussed—
Lord Morris: No, we are interrupting the group.
Lord Swinfen: As far as I am aware we are not interrupting the group. It is not normal practice in this House to interrupt a group; it is normal practice to continue until the amendment has been dealt with and a decision taken.
I tried some time ago to bring the Committee to the industrial, consumer and commercial amendments that are grouped with those on agriculture. If it is convenient to the Committee, I shall do so now. I wanted in particular to speak to Amendment No. 419 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff and myself. It refers to Articles 130f to 130p, which cover research and technological development. The amendment would require an annual report to be made to Parliament. It would not change the treaty in any way. It is a small and innocuous amendment but, I think, an important one.
The articles in the treaty, in effect, allow the Community, which, in my view, means the Commission, to take power over research and development. These articles, starting with Article 130f, give the Community, through the Commission, power to decide what research is done and by whom; how much money will he spent and who will find that money; how the results will be published and who will have access to those results; and what technological developments, if any, might follow. If these articles are pursued and become applicable to the United Kingdom. it follows that the existing British research councils will in future be subject to the overall authority not of my right honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave and our Government, but of Brussels. It also follows that research in British universities and in our research institutions will in future be subject to finance and control by the Commission in Brussels. It also follows that the results of any such research will no longer be the property of the researchers and those who have funded that research, and that decisions as to access to those results will rest with Brussels.
Applied research and technological development is conducted mainly by commerce and industry, but it is also conducted by universities and research institutes, often under contract from commercial organisations. The largest single sponsor of applied research in this country is our own Ministry of Defence. What is the position of MoD contracts for research and development? What would their position be if this section of the treaty applied to the United Kingdom? Who will specify the research to be undertaken by such organisations as Ferranti, GEC or the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment? The MoD or
498
Brussels? Who would have exclusive access to the results of that research and development? Again, our own MoD or Brussels?
One of the largest sponsors of applied research and development outside government is the pharmaceutical industry. Under the terms of these articles in the Maastricht Treaty, those pharmaceutical companies would be obliged to share the results of their research with other companies with which they are in competition. At any rate, that is how I read the treaty.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am trying to follow my noble friend's argument in some detail. I wonder whether he has read Article 130g which seems to make quite clear that it is referring to Community-funded research, which is the position at present, and not to research undertaken privately by pharmaceutical companies.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend reads a different meaning into the treaty from me. I feel that it is only right that I air my worries because they are worries which other people outside the House also have. I think that the Government need to answer them. If I am right and my noble friend is wrong, then the directors and chief executives of those pharmaceutical companies will take their research out of this country and out of the EC to such places as the United States.
As I understand it, Article I 30j gives the Council of Ministers power to decide the rules governing the dissemination of the results of research. That is not so innocuous as it might seem. On my reading of the treaty, it must mean that the ultimate patent rights rest with the Commission instead of with the researchers or the sponsors. It must mean that if the sponsoring company decides (at least for the time being) not to file patents in order to maintain commercial secrecy over a new discovery or invention, under these rules the Commission could still oblige the company to publish. I wonder whether the Commission will compensate the company for loss of those patent rights, and I wonder who will decide the value of the research that has been published. That could lead to a brain drain.
In so far as the Government promote and pay for research and development, surely that is something that is best judged by our Government and not by the Commission. Where is subsidiarity now?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to move away from agriculture and turn to Amendment No. 2.4 and Article 3(b) which deals with the internal market. I have always contended that having been in the Common Market for the past 23 years has not necessarily assisted us with our trade. Indeed, as has been pointed out many times in this debate, our trade with the EEC is overwhelmingly in deficit. Indeed, a deficit of roughly £86.4 billion has accrued since we joined the Common Market in 1973.
Over the same period our trade with the rest of the world was in positive balance, a balance of £78.8 billion, so in fact our trade balance with Europe has been very adverse, whereas with the rest of the world it has been very positive. I think that needs to be taken into account when we are discussing the whole question of the internal market, because the internal

499
market, if it is to be of any use, must benefit us to the extent that we are able to compete on an even playing field and we must not be obstructed by non-tariff barriers and other issues which prevent proper trade. That was the whole idea of having an internal market.
However, there is undoubtedly a situation where there are some hidden subsidies and some subsidies that are perhaps not so hidden. Indeed, according to evidence given by the Institute of Directors to the Trade and Industry Committee, the completion of the 1992 programme of 300 legislative measures leaves the significant trade obstacles of: one, protectionist non-tariff barriers; two, diverse administrative procedures; three, the high cost of trans-border transactions; and, four, high level of state subsidies in the EC.
The principle of free movement of goods provided for in the Treaty of Rome and supplemented by rulings of the European Court of Justice, particularly the Cassis de Dijon case, is that EC countries must recognise each others' product standards, subject to essential health and safety requirements. There is therefore no need for the detailed EC product standards we are now seeing, to the detriment of many of our industries. But there are many national regulations in existence and being made, which block market access in the EC, distort competition and put more pressure on the EC to centralise all regulations.
That is the direct opposite of the intention of the Treaty of Rome for mutual recognition of standards. For example, Italy and France have regulated their pleasure boat builders in the interests of safety, and so have blocked trade. Instead of hearing this case at the European Court of Justice, as an infringement of the Treaty of Rome, the Commission has issued a directive laying down a stringent EC framework for boat building. If it is adopted, apparently it will put a huge and unnecessary burden on British boat builders, even if the boats are sold only within the United Kingdom. It will add to costs and reduce the competitiveness of British boat builders. That is absurd. It was not envisaged, and the Government should be fighting their corner on this, but some of us fear that they are not doing so.
A second example concerns Germany and the Netherlands adopting a system of recycling and packaging waste. It is quite a well known case, I believe. The EC is proposing to issue a directive to enforce this system throughout the EC, with let-outs available on a national basis. Meanwhile, Germany is enforcing the new German law, which discriminates against imported goods, contrary to Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome. Again, that is not fair to this country and to other members of the EC. Examples of subsidies distorting competition and trade abound in the EC. According to the Commission's recent statement, The Third Survey on State AIDS in the European Community 1988–1990, 36 billion ecus—I do not like that term: I wish people would translate my briefs into pounds for me. What is it?—
Lord Bruce of Donington: About £25 billion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am grateful to my noble friend. There is the sum of £25 billion being spent on manufacturing subsidies, an exercise which I understood Her Majesty's Government were against. The public sector receives cheap loans and lax requirements for return on investment to promote key national industries, like telecommunications, transport, banking and energy, whereas in this country no subsidy is allowed. Therefore our industries are in an uncompetitive position. If we are to have this harmonisation, at least there ought to be some fairness for this country. Indeed, it seems to me that with all the regulations that are emerging from the Community at the present time, destroying not only parts of our agricultural industry but also parts of manufacturing industry, we are finding that we do not have a single market but a centralist market.
Again I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, did not intend, when she negotiated this single market, that it was going to be a centralised market; but I am afraid that is what is happening. Indeed, Peter Sutherland, the former Irish competition commissioner, recently remarked that a single market is not merely centralist by intent but by default. Subsidiarity, while a fine concept in principle, would defeat the very purpose of a single market.
So it is quite clear that there are commissioners and there are countries which believe that we have not actually got a free market but we have got a centralised market which is producing regulation after regulation, undermining competitiveness and indeed, in this country, undermining our very manufacturing base. I hope that the noble Viscount, or whoever is going to reply, will take all these points into account.
Lord Aldington: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, provokes me again into making a point which I tried to make before. I thought we were concerned in this debate on this Bill in discussing changes in the Community law and, as a result, in British law as a consequence of the Maastricht Treaty. This afternoon the noble Lord, and many other noble Lords, have been discussing in a fascinating way what is now the case, and what has been the case since we joined in 1972. The noble Lord is objecting to the rules of the single market. That is yesterday; that is not anything to do with Maastricht. I could add that I do not see how one can get a real single market without eliminating the discrepancies in practices between the various 12 member states. That is what I think my noble friend Lord Cockfield was about in his magnificent initiation of the single market regime.
It is the same with standards. The noble Lord has been referring to standards. I have some knowledge of that subject because I was for a time president of the British Standards Institution. It was very much in the interest of British exporters and manufacturers that the standards should be the same all over Europe and should not be used as protective instruments against us. But that has nothing whatever to do with Maastricht, and I suggest to noble Lords that at some time or another we have to make up our minds whether, in the Committee stage of this important Bill, we are going to have wide-ranging debates on the subject that is raised or the words that come up. My

501
noble friend Lord. Onslow—I see that he is not sitting in his usual place—asked earlier this afternoon: Did we not understand that he and his friends hoped to hang debates on words in the treaty? I understand that. but surely in the procedure of this Committee we need, in the context of the Bill, to have regard to words as they stand.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene because I think that I can help him. He must know that in this context an offer of help from me is like an offer of a concrete lifebelt. Nonetheless, I hope that he will take it.
We are debating these matters because they are in the treaty which Her Majesty's Government propose to ratify. Surely there can be no more simple explanation than that. That is why the Public Bill Office, which is not a collection of Euro-sceptic freaks but sober men who have been doing the job for many years in this House, has allowed the amendments to be placed on the Marshalled List. If the amendments are on the Marshalled List, surely it is not unreasonable that they are discussed. I can understand the embarrassment of some Members of the Committee at the fact that these matters are being discussed at all. But they must swallow their embarrassment and allow the Committee to do its job.
Lord Aldington: Whether my noble friend offers a concrete or a rubber lifebelt does not matter. I am not complaining about what the Table has done in admitting amendments. I am suggesting to the Committee that we shall make much more use of the time we have available on the Bill if we discuss the amendments on the basis of the changes which the Maastricht Treaty makes to the law and not on the basis of issues in the Treaty of Rome to which we object. I though t that the discussion was about the Maastricht Treaty and not about Britain being in Europe. That is the point that I am making and I shall continue to make it today, next week and on Report. I thought that that was what we were here for.
Several interesting points arise in this grouping. I hope that we shall touch on industrial policy and on research and technical development which my noble friend Lord Swinfen mentioned. I hope that we shall also concentrate our attention on the changes made by the Maastricht Treaty and not on our objections to what exists, because we shall have plenty of other chances to do so.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen referred to the research and development provisions. The provision which he did not like about the dissemination of information is already in the Treaty of Rome and therefore it is not some evil thing imported by the Maastricht Treaty. Likewise, some Members of the Committee may believe that because an industry chapter and some other chapters are introduced in the Maastricht Treaty, there has been a great change of practice in the Community. For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, that is simply not so. What those chapters are doing, and are usefully doing, is to put into writing in the treaty the practice that has
502
been developed during the years by the Commission with the consent of the Council. I hope that that will be borne in mind because then Members or the Committee will have fewer fears about the matter.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend sits down, it must be put on the record that in Amendment No. 22 we are talking about the mention of the common agricultural policy in the Treaty of Rome. Some of us happen to believe that that common agricultural policy is a grave mistake. Therefore, we are trying to persuade Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend on the Front Bench to use that particular peg in the Maastricht Treaty to get something done about what is obviously a disaster. Furthermore, I regret to say that the response of my noble friend on the Front Bench was auto-pilot Euro-gunge without any thought whatever. I am sorry to have to say that to one of the nicest Ministers I know.
Lord Peston: My noble friend Lord Stoddart suggested that the noble Viscount might like to reply in detail to all his points. I regard what is going on, as did the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, as a general litany of complaints about the European Community which is not appropriate for the debate today. I have no intention of fighting battles of 20 years ago merely so that my noble friends and other noble Lords can indulge in their persistent anti-Europeanism in one form or another. This is not a debate about whether we should be in the European Community. It is not a debate about the many faults of the European Community, many of which we share. It is a debate about the Maastricht Treaty and its detail, and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is entirely correct.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we spent an hour and a half discussing agriculture and I hope that he is not returning us to that subject. I shall not join him in attacking his noble friend Lord Ullswater, whose reply was entirely sensible. In particular, he pointed out that most of what the noble Earl and his friends are saying has nothing to do with the Maastricht Treaty. We share the view that the CAP is an inefficient way of helping agriculture and we should like to do something about that. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. said, we are discussing the Maastricht Treaty and I shall confine my few remarks to that.
With the exception of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to which I shall return, most of the amendments before us relate to Article 3 and to strengthening the free-trade aspects of the European Community. I and my noble friends tabled an amendment to deal with that. It is now irrelevant because we tabled it in order to ensure that we could discuss these matters. If Article 3 is interpreted at its face value and, in particular, if we can believe what is said about subsidiarity—namely, that much of what happens in Article 3 we hope will happen at the level of the individual nation—the Maastricht Treaty, especially in this area, should be strongly supported by the Committee. It achieves most of the aims which the noble Baroness wanted to achieve in the Single European Act and it reinforces them.

503
There are Members of the Committee who do not favour the single market. The speech of my noble friend Lord Stoddart was one of pure mercantilism. Our balance of payments position with the Community is a complete irrelevance; it is as much of an irrelevance as the position with any individual nation. What matters is our overall balance of payments position. Complaining that we happen to be in deficit with one particular part of the world is neither here nor there—unless one is a mercantilist, which I thought we had got rid of 150 years ago. I hope that the noble Viscount will not be trapped into that debate, which goes back a long time and at one point split his own party.
In pushing for the abolition of restraints of many kinds, Article 3 argues that we do not distort competition. I agree that the Community does not play according to the rules, but that is for another day. In supporting such points, in arguing that we ought to do more to ensure that we have a common market and in arguing that we strengthen competition policy and so forth, they are parts of the Bill which I should have thought the Committee would overwhelmingly wish to support. I say in terms that I support them. I want to hear from the noble Viscount that, subject to two matters, the Government support them too.
Most of these matters should be dealt with at the level of the individual state. The more that we can push them to that level the better. In case after case the main role of the Community is to make sure that the states do what they ought in respect of competition. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made a good point and has tabled an interesting amendment. The noble Lord is no longer in the Chamber so I shall break my usual rule and refer to what he said. I am anxious about a particular matter and it may be that the noble Viscount will wish to take advice and come back to it on Report. It is that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said that by directives the Community could overcome patent law. That was what he appeared to say in terms of dissemination of research. I find that hard to believe. I should like guidance on that matter and to return to it later.
There is, however, an aspect of Amendment No. 419 which I like. I should like to hear the noble Viscount's remarks on that amendment because I find it extremely attractive. It would be a good idea to have an annual report. Having said that, I have no great desire—and I am sure the Government have no such desire—to amend the Bill in order to achieve that result because that would create all kinds of problems in another place. However, perhaps the Minister would give a few words of encouragement by saying that the Government will pledge to present an annual report to Parliament because that would be helpful.
I believe that Article 3 is good and is one of the better parts of the Bill. It is not subject to any of those ludicrous opt-outs secured by the Prime Minister. I hope that those who have tabled the amendments will withdraw them and that the Government will be as supportive of their own Bill as I am.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I must pass some observations on the remarks of my noble friend. There
504
is a tendency among academics to like everything tidily bound up in academic terms. I appreciate the noble Lord's isolation in that particular respect. We cannot always follow my noble friend into the stratosphere of the tutorial or the classes to which he is so accustomed and so skilful in giving. However, the fact is that the treaty which we are discussing has a political context and was introduced in a political context. It is not as though the Prime Minister, when commending it to Parliament, commended it in academic terms as to whether or not it complied with this or that law which had or had not previously existed. The Bill was presented to Parliament as a political triumph and within a political context.
In a few years' time it may be that my noble friend will condescend to descend into the political arena and depart from his academic attitude towards this matter. However, we must consider the treaty within its political context. I address those remarks also to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. He tends to take a legalistic attitude when it suits him, but he must know perfectly well that whatever laws are laid down, some member states flaunt the law all the time. I presume that that is tolerated by the noble Lord.
Lord Aldington: The noble Lord knows that to be incorrect. He sat with me when we reported on the matter and made recommendations to the House. Will he withdraw that abominable statement?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing my remark. The noble Lord knows just as well as I do, and just as well as any Member of the Committee, that France, for example, obeys only those regulations which it suits it to obey. Most of the rest are shoved out of the window when it suits France to do so. We can be quite blunt about that. To discuss the treaty within any context other than a political and enforcement context is quite unrealistic. The treaty affects people, human beings, throughout Europe and in our own country.
Lord Beloff: I believe that it is time to pour some balm on these troubled waters. Therefore, I shall speak to Amendment No. 426 because I believe that the Government would like to accept that amendment. After all, it merely puts into precise legislative words what the Government have been telling us is their policy over the past few years in successive debates, not only on Maastricht but on general commercial and economic policy; namely, that the cornerstone of their policy with regard to trade is the successful completion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations. No doubt the Government are prepared to confirm that.
My amendment proposes that that should be used as the lever which has been sought during some of the current debate; that is, to move certain aspects of Community practice our way. There is surely a bargaining counter in this regard. We know that the Community would be able to accept the Uruguay Round were it not for the French Government. That is no secret because M. Balladur has said again and

505
again that he does not accept the agricultural aspects of the proposed agreement and that France will never give up agricultural protectionism.
How do we persuade France to act to the contrary? France wants us to be part of the Europe created by Maastricht. I suggest a straight bargain: we will pass the necessary measure in order for the Government to ratify the treaty when the Government's own policy—the adhesion of the European Community to the GATT—is fulfilled. I cannot see how Her Majesty's Government can possibly reject that amendment because, when the Bill returns to the other place, they will no doubt recommend that the House of Commons, which, to judge by its speeches, is dedicated to the GATT, should accept the amendment. At a quarter-to six, after nearly three hours of debate, this gives us an opportunity to come together on a very moderate, sensible and practical amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not think that we should leave this group of amendments without touching on commerce. Therefore, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 23 which proposes to remove Article 3(b) from the Treaty on European Union. This article says that one of the new competences of the Community is to be a common commercial policy. I wonder whether the Minister could explain to us what is meant by the expression "common commercial policy" in the context of the treaty. I understand that no such explanation was forthcoming in another place and, therefore, it is perhaps worth pressing the question in this Committee.
We already have a common market established under the Treaty of Rome and I believe that we have understood by now what that concept of a common market means. But we now have a new expression "single market" which was established by the Single European Act, as that treaty is known. Again, I think we have mastered the implications of that one. So what now are we to understand by a "common commercial policy" on top of the common market and on top of the single market?
If it is intended to mean a common policy on external tariffs such as GATT, that is already being pursued without the need for the union treaty. How will the declaration in the Maastricht Treaty of "a common commercial policy" improve matters? I should have thought that the recent negotiations on GATT demonstrate all too clearly that a common policy is adopted by all parties only if each sees it to be to its advantage to approve it. France, for one, has demonstrated that measure of retention of its national interest. However, I must assume that a "common commercial policy" means more than GATT.
What does it mean? Under the principle of subsidiarity, if that is to mean that decisions are taken at the lowest administrative level most closely associated with the subject in hand, surely for the most part commercial policy is something which each individual trading company establishes for itself. It is not even a matter for national governments, let alone a supranational government in Brussels.
506
Another of the activities listed in Article 3 and relevant to this debate is Article 3(1). This says that the Community will be engaged in:
"the strengthening of the competitiveness of Community industry".
Again, I suggest that it is for each individual company to strengthen its own competitiveness both within the Community and in the rest of the world.
I am questioning whether the strengthening of the competitiveness of an individual company, an individual industry or a series of industries is a proper function for a political institution—namely., the Community—especially in view of the Community's record to date on those matters, and whether in fact the Community and its institutions can strengthen the competitiveness of what they intend to strengthen.
What I suspect will happen as a result of this clause will be the distortion of competitiveness in favour of certain sectors, certain regions, certain industries, certain countries and certain companies as against others within Europe. But whatever the meaning of these clauses, no one can say that they are not centralising measures and, therefore, I would have to ask my noble friend the Minister how he squares that with the constant statement of our Government that this treaty is a decentralising measure.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has referred to Amendment No. 23. Technically, we are meant to be discussing Amendment No. 22. I should like to come to that just to find out what those who have proposed the amendment have in mind. Amendment No. 22 proposes the elimination of Article 3(a). Article 3(a) reads as follows:
"the elimination as between Member States of customs duties and quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect".
If that article is eliminated, it means, presumably, that those who support the amendment feel that there should be a re-introduction of customs duties and quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods between member countries and of all other measures having equivalent effect. That, of course, goes to the root of the Treaty of Rome, the first act of which was to remove those barriers. In fact, it goes much further back than that, because, as the Committee will recall, we were the prime movers in the creation of a European free trade area. The whole underlying concept of the European free trade area was that customs duties and so forth should be eliminated.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I want to help us to make progress. To that end, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord once again why amendments of this kind are on the Marshalled List. They are not necessarily on the Marshalled List because their movers wish to carry through the intent of the amendments, but it is the only way in which we can have a debate on those matters. The noble Lord is well entitled to have his debate on those matters, but he should not assume that it is necessarily the intent of the noble Lord who put down the amendment to delete Article 3(a) also to give up the elimination as between member states of

507
customs duties and so on. It is a peg upon which to hang a debate but not upon which to presume other people's opinions before they are given.
Lord Ezra: I find this a puzzling procedure. We have amendments presented to us. We are told that they are pegs upon which to hang a debate and, "Of course, we have no intention of persuading anyone to do anything about it". Yesterday I asked a similar question as a result of another amendment of this sort which appeared to suggest that the noble Lord moving it was against price stability. I was told, "Not at all. Of course we are in favour of price stability. We merely put it in to stimulate a wider debate". I am getting a bit lost in this whole procedure. We are having amendments put forward which we are told are not really amendments; they are just pegs. That seems to be a new term in our procedure. I feel that we should now perhaps, as these amendments are all pegs which we are not meant to debate seriously, invite the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, to conclude this part of our deliberations.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Ullswater: I apologise if noble Lords find the debate rather disjointed. I confess that I do too. We are continuing with the other areas mentioned in Article 3 of the principles. We started with agriculture. The others relate to areas primarily of an economic and commercial nature. I was pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, explained what he meant by Amendment No. 158 which is in the joint names of the Opposition Front Bench. Amendment No. 159 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. It seeks to delete from the Bill the entire text on industry in Title XIII. I realise that that was a method of discussing the subject. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he supported the provisions and that he hoped that the Government also supported them.
Industry has of course a vital role to play in the economic well-being of the Community and its citizens. The UK therefore welcomes the provisions of the industry chapter. It is entirely right and proper that the treaty should address industry policy. The industry chapter provides for Community action in three main areas: to help industry adjust to structural changes; to encourage a favourable environment for initiative and co-operation between businesses; and to foster the exploitation of the industrial potential of innovation and R&D policies.
The chapter reaffirms the principles enshrined in the Commission communication entitled Industrial Policy in an Open and Competitive Environment, adopted by the Council of Industry Ministers in 1990. That communication emphasises the importance of free and open markets in promoting a strong and competitive industry and eschews the use of sectoral-specific support measures. Those principles have stood the test of time well and are directly in line with UK policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out that we have an adverse balance of trade with Europe. He felt that the efforts to create a single market were
508
centralist rather than competitive. Our exports to Germany equal those to Japan and the United States combined. The European Community countries account for eight of our 10 largest export markets. The Community brings us foreign investment. Foreign investors, especially those from the United States and Japan, come here because we provide such an attractive base for the single market. They add to British industry and jobs and they add to the nation's prosperity. I believe that those from outside recognise not just the value of the single market but the strength of Britain's place within it.
My noble friend Lord Aldington stressed the importance of the single market. He drew our attention to the fact that most of the changes sought by the amendments that we are discussing are not changes to the Bill, because, apart from those expansions of the principles in the article on industry, they are not changes to the law made by the Maastricht Treaty.
Mention has also been made of research and development. Amendments Nos. 34 and 168 to 178 seek to leave out of the Bill the various provisions of the Maastricht Treaty covering research and development.
The Community has a useful role to play in research and development. It can facilitate collaboration on projects of common interest where the large scale and high costs make them too large for individual member states to tackle alone and can help avoid waste of effort and resources by ensuring that there is no unnecessary duplication. Community research complements action taken by member states and can tackle issues which transcend national boundaries. With its emphasis on development of technologies with wide-ranging applications, Community R&D can play an important role in improving the competitiveness of industry in the EC. That is, furthermore, an area of EC activity in which the UK has gained substantial benefits: we get back more than we put in.
Under the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, all EC research activity will be brought within one framework. That will allow for better co-ordination and better control. The treaty also sets clear rules for participation and the dissemination of results—a point to which I shall return—and provides for decision-making by unanimity which will allow us to keep control of the overall size of the budget and the direction of the programme.
Amendment No. 419 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill requiring the Government to report annually to Parliament on the Community's research and development programmes. Effective mechanisms already exist for reports to Parliament on the formulation and implementation of Community policy in this area. Such a new clause would simply serve to add to the complexity of procedures and is not something that should be enshrined in legislation.
I draw my noble friend's attention to Article 130p which states:
"At the beginning of each year the Commission shall send a report to the European Parliament and the Council. The

509
report shall include information on research and technological development activities and the dissemination of results during the previous year, and the work programme for the current year".
A copy of that report is available in the Libraries of both Houses. I believe that that article goes a long way to satisfy the noble Lord's desire for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. However, the matter is still subject to Parliamentary Questions being asked in this Chamber or in another place. I believe that that measure increases the transparency of the activity in the Common Market.
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I hope my noble friend will allow me to intervene. I asked him specific questions on defence research. I asked who could decide what research would be carried out by our defence contractors. Would that be the Commission or ourselves?
Viscount Ullswater: If it is a question of R&D by member states, the member states have the entire right to decide what they wish to investigate. What we are talking about here is Community funded R&D that is carried out across the boundaries of member states. I have indicated how important it is that we should have the funds that the Community has at its disposal rather than the funds of individual member states to carry out this additional research. The kind of programmes that are being carried out currently concern information technology, biotechnology and materials technology. We are interested in generic technologies and not necessarily those of near market research.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in talking to Amendment No. 22 wanted to query the effect of the single market. I believe that Article 3(a), (b), (c), (g), (h) and (1) combined deal with the internal market and free trade. These are fundamental aims of the Community and have been since its foundation—a part of the Community to which the UK signed up and a part of the kind of Community we want to see. I rather agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when he spoke about the workings of these policies which we need to make sure we oversee and correct. We need to lower barriers to trade within the Community so that we can increase wealth in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. I do not think it would be at all sensible to try to remove these areas of activity from the list of Community activities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Viscount passes on—
Noble Lords: That is not a felicitous expression!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I apologise. I hope that the noble Viscount will be with us a long time as he is so courteous and does his very best to answer questions that are put to him. On the question of the single market, the point I was trying to make—I do not necessarily believe that a single market is necessary, as the noble Viscount is aware—was that if we are to have a single market, we must be assured that this country is not being put at a disadvantage by non-tariff barriers and by subsidies which under the Treaty of Rome are illegal. That was the point
510
that I was making. Whether I agree with the single market or whether I agree with the whole lot is irrelevant. The fact is that it is there. I was seeking to obtain the assurance from the noble Viscount that Her Majesty's Government, within the context of the Treaty of Rome and within the context of the single market, were dealing with these matters and were pushing the interests of this country for all they a re worth.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe the noble Lord was commenting not only on the completion of the single market but also on what he considered to be state aids. I believe he was querying whether the United Kingdom indulged in state aids and whether we obtained the benefit from them that he indicated other countries did.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is no good Members of the Committee shouting no. This is a Committee stage. We must discuss this matter as a Committee. This is not a Second Reading debate and this is not Report stage. This is the Committee stage. Members of the Committee may rise as many times as they wish to clarify points. I believe the noble Viscount has probably misrepresented me. I hope he will reconsider what he has said.
Viscount Ullswater: What I was trying to say—I do not believe I had an argument with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—was that I believed the noble Lord was explaining that the United Kingdom should not put itself at any disadvantage in the application of state aids and that any form of the workings of the single market should not put the United Kingdom at a disadvantage. I agree with the noble Lord on that. I was going on to make the point that the United Kingdom has taken advantage of state aid rules to obtain clearance for many new schemes and individual projects. It would not be right to think that the United Kingdom did not make use of what was available under the Treaty of Rome and under the Single European Act. The Maastricht Treaty adds a further possibility of exemption to the third paragraph of Article 92 which concerns the aid to promote heritage and culture conservation. I believe that that is a reasonable addition.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked me pointedly what was meant by the common commercial policy. I can do no better than to refer him to Articles 110 to 115. That policy has not materially changed since the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. Article 110 states:
"By establishing a customs union between themselves Member States aim to contribute, in the common interest, to the harmonious development of world trade, the progressive abolition of restriction on international trade and the lowering of customs barriers".
That is what is meant by the common commercial policy. The article indicates how that customs union should be established.
I am not certain whether my noble friend is suggesting that we should not go down that route. I

511
believe he is suggesting that somehow we can do better on our own than we can in an international forum. I do not believe that to be true. My noble friend Lord Beloff—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I apologise but could my noble friend deal with my main question in my intervention which concerns the meaning of Article 3(1) when it suggests that the Community of all things should be engaged in,
"the strengthening of the competitiveness of Community industry"
That was my main point. I suggested that that was a centralising measure. I suggested, and I suggest, that the Community is incapable of doing so.
Viscount Ullswater: That relates to the article on industry which we have already discussed. I believe that we should be seeking to improve the competitiveness of industry. That article allows us to pursue that objective.
Having said that, the Commission can only act unanimously and must make certain that its actions do not lead to the distortion of competition. Those actions should lead to a system of open and competitive markets. I believe that my noble friend would agree with all those sentiments. Therefore, I believe that he should support the inclusion of the industry chapter in the treaty.
My noble friend Lord Beloff wanted to offer me something with which he thought everybody could agree. He said that we had a bargaining counter and that the GATT agreement should not come into force until the Community had agreed the coming into effect of the Uruguay Round. There is no justification, within or outside the treaty, for postponing its entry into force until such time as the Uruguay Round is concluded.
Recently, at Copenhagen the European Council stressed that it was essential to relaunch the multilateral process in Geneva as soon as possible and called for agreement before the end of the year. It was important at that stage of the negotiations, and before the G7 economic summit, to give a clear signal that the Community would work for a GATT round settlement before the end of the year.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. He read from the conclusions of the Copenhagen conference. However, he omitted the words "including agriculture". The actual text reads:
"The European Council stressed that it was essential to relaunch the multilateral process in Geneva as soon as possible on all topics, including agriculture".
I do not know whether the noble Viscount omitted the words "including agriculture" by accident, but the statement refers specifically to agriculture.
Viscount Ullswater: I am pleased that it does, because that is one of the most important areas on which we need to seek agreement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am trying to help the noble Viscount.
Viscount Ullswater: I accept any help that is offered to me while I am standing at this Dispatch Box.
The Uruguay Round negotiations were launched in 1986. We hope that they will be concluded as soon as possible. As the Government have made clear on a number of occasions, this is a key objective and the successful conclusion of the round will be to the benefit of all. However, I do not believe that it can be used in the way my noble friend suggested. It is certainly not a reason for delaying the entry into force of the Act.
Lord Beloff: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. My point was that the French Government had made it clear that they would not go ahead with concluding the agreement if agriculture was part of that agreement. Does the Minister concur that that is what the French Government have said?
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that many member states have problems with that aspect of the round. I do not believe that it is a narrow point of concern to the French. France is no exception, but they did not stop a clear and forceful signal being given. They were signatories to that particular conclusion.
All the areas covered by the amendments are, by and large, already included in the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. Incorporation of these areas in the Maastricht Treaty does not, therefore, signify a departure from existing Community practice. In many areas the Maastricht Treaty represents a useful codification and limitation of Community activities. I urge the Committee to oppose the amendments.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I was very interested to hear the views of the Committee on this group of amendments. In particular, the arguments on agriculture, which occupied quite a long time, showed how strongly many Members of the Committee feel about the matter. The arguments boil down roughly to two points of view. The first is the view held by my noble friends Lord Plumb and Lord Cockfield that it would be best for us to stick by the provisions of Article 3(e) and its predecessors because that is the best way to go about reducing the current admitted excesses of the CAP. The second point of view is that held by those others who feel that we have already had long enough to reduce the excesses in the present provisions of the treaty.
While disagreeing entirely with the common agricultural policy, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, felt that he was able to agree with the provisions of the treaty because they did not use capital letters but referred simply to a common agricultural policy in Article 3(e).
I was a little disappointed by the reply of my noble friend Lord Ullswater in relying on the existing provisions of the reformed CAP—the MacSharry model, CAP Mark II—to protect the consumer and taxpayer from the depredations of the CAP. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

513
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Devonport Dockyard: Trident Refit
6.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"The House has been waiting to hear our proposals on the future of the Royal dockyards and in particular on the location of nuclear refitting. This is a matter which has been under long and careful consideration. I am now ready to place our proposals before the House.
"During the 1980s the size of the nuclear submarine refit programme as a whole meant that all existing submarine docks at Devonport and Rosyth were required and a new dock had to be provided for refitting Trident. We indicated at that time that the new facility was to be built at Rosyth. With the end of the cold war and the reduction in the size of the submarine and surface fleet it became possible and desirable to consider new and less expensive solutions. Accordingly, in July 1991 the Ministry of Defence invited both Devonport and Rosyth to put forward proposals for nuclear refitting work.
"Since then we have subjected the proposals made by the two dockyard companies to the most detailed and intense scrutiny. We have had three proposals: two from Babcock Thorn Limited, one in respect of the new RD57 facility at Rosyth and the other for upgrading the existing docks at Rosyth; and one from Devonport Management Limited in respect of upgrading the existing docks at Devonport. These proposals have been evaluated for comparative purposes by the Ministry of Defence, supported by independent specialist advisers.
"This evaluation has taken some time. I know that the decision has been keenly awaited, but I do not regret the time taken. The fact is that the upgrade proposals now being considered cost over £250 million less than those we originally had under consideration. I make no apologies for allowing the competitive process to push the costs down to the benefit of both the Royal Navy and the taxpayer. We were also keen to ensure that both dockyards had a full opportunity to put forward proposals on a fair and equal basis.
"The scrutiny has however not been simply a cost comparison. Before we could consider the cost of these proposals, there were two conditions that had to be fulfilled.
"The first was that the proposals had to be completely sound and technically well-founded. Our detailed examination has reassured us that the proposals from both yards can be relied upon to
514
produce facilities of the required standard and that both yards have the skills and the experience to carry out both submarine and surface ship refitting. Over the past 10 years Devonport has refitted seven nuclear submarines as well as 72 surface ships and Rosyth has refitted five nuclear submarines as well as 79 surface ships, including 11 frigates and destroyers.
"The second key consideration has been safety. Safety is, rightly, a matter which must be subject to independent validation. Our detailed analysis over a period of months shows clearly that each of the three proposals should reach the very high standard required.
"Turning to the comparison of the cost of the various proposals, our scrutiny has taken place against the background of the need to get the best possible value for money from the defence budget. In particular I need to ensure—as do the Chiefs of Staff—that the proportion of the defence budget spent on the support of the Armed Forces is kept as small as possible, so that the proportion which can go directly to the front line should be as large as possible. I am sure that the House will join wrth me in supporting this objective.
"We have considered both the capital costs and the operating costs associated with the various proposals. With regard to the capital costs, the results of the analysis show that our estimate, on a like for like basis, of the three proposals is as follows: the proposal to build new docks at Rosyth, known as RD57, would cost some £369 million on top of the £100 million already spent; the proposals for upgrading of docks in Rosyth would cost about £248 million; and the proposals from Devonport will cost about £236 million. This shows that, despite the sums that have already been spent, the RD57 project is very much more expensive than either of the other two proposals, and I do not propose to consider it further. 'The two upgrade proposals are much closer in cost, but there is a clear difference in Devonport's favour of £12 million.
"With regard to operating costs, we have looked at these over 15 years, by which time the capital work would have been completed, the necessary rationalization taken place and the new arrangements settled down. Our analysis shows that on operating costs Devonport is again the cheaper yard, by a total of some £52 million over the period. Taking all these factors into account, the total difference between the two bids is £64 million in favour of Devonport. These figures do not include redundancy costs, which again are less if Devonport is the nuclear yard.
"Two days ago we received a completely new suggestion from Babcock Thorn Limited. This suggestion is that the number of docks where nuclear work can take place should he reduced from two to one and that the emergency docking facility should be used as the nuclear defuelling and refuelling facility. When we received this we had already spent several months in detailed consultation with both companies on their proposals in

515
order to be able to report with confidence the figures I have quoted today. Our period of consultation was extended in January in part to ensure that Babcock Thorn was able to propose an upgrading solution on the same basis as Devonport. It is quite unreasonable to produce completely new ideas so close to a decision, which if they were relevant could have been presented at any time over the last six months. But, more importantly, we are not able to accept any proposal which would deprive the Trident submarines of a dedicated emergency docking facility for significant periods; which would mean that the single nuclear refuelling facility was used for all our submarines, so exposing us to unacceptable risks in the event of an incident, or other difficulty; and which is untested from a technical and safety point of view.
"The view of the First Sea Lord, with which I agree, is that this suggestion imposes an unacceptable level of operational risk and that it should be ruled out. The same would apply to any proposal we received at this stage from Devonport based on the same engineering approach. The only way forward is for us to take a decision based on the analysis which we have before us.
"The Government do not believe that it would be prudent to ignore the capital difference of £12 million and the overall difference of £64 million between the Devonport and Rosyth proposals. There are no other relevant factors which point decisively or conclusively to one yard or the other. I am therefore announcing today our conclusion that, subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations, we shall proceed with the Devonport nuclear refitting facility proposals.
"I now turn to our long-term plans for the future of Rosyth. I made clear in my 9th February Statement that our aim is to achieve a healthy competitive structure for non-nuclear refitting. We wish Rosyth to develop into a yard which will bid competitively for surface ship refits and other work. Rosyth already has considerable experience of surface ship work—for example, the successful refits of Type 42 destroyers carried out over recent years—and we have every confidence in its ability to become a major and successful surface ship yard.
"I am conscious that a significant period of transition will be required to help Rosyth to restructure in order that it can concentrate on such work. To enable Rosyth to make this transition, we intend to continue with an allocated programme for 12 years, until 2005. Once nuclear work is concentrated at Devonport, the only allocation of surface ship refits will be to Rosyth: all other refit work will have to be won in competition. The programme for Rosyth would comprise over half of surface warship refitting, including all aircraft carrier refits, virtually all Type 42 destroyer refits and all Hunt Class mine warfare vessel refits, as well as other refits of Type 23 and Type 22 frigates. After the year 2000 that programme will begin to taper clown until 2005. These proposals mean that we expect Rosyth to be allocated responsibility for
516
the refits of some 18 major warships. We expect Devonport, as the nuclear yard, to be allocated responsibility for the refits of some 12 nuclear submarines.
"Employment at the yards is a matter for the companies concerned. At present there are some 3,700 people employed at Rosyth. We estimate that there will be a reduction of about 450 in the workforce as a direct result of reduced MoD work. Employment on MoD work should continue at about this level at least to the turn of the century. The allocation should also provide the basis for Rosyth to bid for extra work and to develop new markets. There is every reason for confidence that, given the skills of the workforce and the traditionally high standard of their work, it will be possible for Rosyth to win work in competition over and above the allocated programme and this should increase employment beyond the levels I have indicated.
"Reductions in employment will not be confined to Rosyth. Because of the declining overall refit programme, we would expect reductions in the numbers employed at Devonport of the order of about 350.
"Given the benefit of competition, I am pleased to be able to say that, even during the period of an allocated programme of the kind I have indicated, there will be a higher proportion of the refit programme available for competition than at present. That proportion will increase after 2000 and will apply to the whole of the surface ship refitting programme after 2005. Both dockyards as well as shipbuilders will be able to compete for this unallocated work.
"Further information setting out the background to these conclusions will be contained in a consultative document which will be published in the near future to provide a basis for consultation with parties concerned.
"I believe that the proposals I have set out today will provide a healthy future for both yards. Trident submarines will carry the deterrent well into the next century. It is therefore essential that they be refitted to the high standards the Royal Navy expects. The taxpayer equally has a right to expect value for money. My proposals achieve both these objectives and I commend them to the House." My Lords, that completes the Statement.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elves: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place. As he rightly said, it is an important Statement, one for which we have been waiting a long time. I should like also to congratulate Devonport Management Limited on the contract which is to be awarded to it, subject to the conditions that the noble Viscount announced. I am sure that the company will do very well.
However, I have to say to the noble Viscount that I find the Statement which he has just repeated depressing in three respects. I shall elaborate on those respects in the questions that I shall put to the noble

517
Viscount in a minute. First, there is the question of the good faith of the Government in the assurances that have been made. Secondly, I believe that there is no sign of serious thinking in the Government of the social and psychological effects that the decision will have in Scotland and on the Scottish economy, nor of the real social effects that it will have. Whether it is £64 million, here or there, on a contract of £5 billion is a matter within the broad range of estimates. If the noble Viscount can tell me that it is accurate within a small percentage, then he is a better estimator than I am. Thirdly, there is the question of how the decision was made and the motivation for it.
I should like to put some questions to the noble Viscount on those themes. Was it not the case that, in return for the Faslane Trident base and the Coulport storage facility, the Government promised that R.osyth would have the Trident refitting programme? Is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Younger, recently reminded your Lordships and the public that this was the basis on which the Government had sold Faslane and Coulport to the Scottish electorate and that he regarded it as a matter of good faith that the Government should award the Trident refitting facility to Rosyth? What has happened to that assurance upon which the noble Lord, Lord Younger, insisted?
Clearly, £120 million of taxpayers' money has been spent—money which the noble Viscount is so keen on saving—on a new facility at Rosyth, specifically designed for the refitting programme. Are we now to be told that this facility is one in which old nuclear submarines are to be buried? That is the latest supposition. Is that the programme? How will it react with the community in Scotland?
On the question of the effects on the Scottish economy and society, we welcome the allocated programme. There is no doubt that the Government have stretched a very long way in trying to keep Rosyth going as a facility. But is the noble Viscount seriously saying that that is enough to keep Rosyth going? Rosyth is, after all, the largest industrial employer in Scotland. It is rightly proud of the apprentice training scheme. Unless there is security, then there is no apprentice scheme and there is no justification for keeping Rosyth going. The Statement says:
"Employment at the yards is a matter for the companies concerned".
Is that not a derogation of the Government's responsibilities? After all, in areas of high unemployment, British Steel and British Coal have started companies which have re-employed people, offered employment and developed industries—subsidiary manufacturing or service concerns—to employ those put out of work. What will happen in Scotland? Will the noble Viscount please respond to that?
Then I come to the question of the motives for the decision. It is, I am afraid to say, very odd. We learn that a poll was produced by Devonport Management Limited which showed that 21 Conservative seats would be in danger in the South-West if Devonport did not get the contract. The poll was submitted to the
518
Conservative Central Office. Will the noble Viscount say what the poll indicated? Is it a public opinion poll? Are we all allowed to see the results?
We are also told that certain resignations are in view of parliamentary private secretaries, saying, "If it doesn't go to Devonport then 20 or 30 Tory MPs will find their seats in the South-West at risk". Then we are told that that might lead to the loss of the Government's majority. There are a number of questions that the noble Viscount has to answer.
However much we may say that the Government have tried—and I think that they have tried their best to cobble something together—it is difficult not to believe that this is simply a political stitch-up, to resolve an internal dispute between different interests within the Conservative Party. If the Government are prepared to make decisions of vital national interest—and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the decision is of vital national interest—on that basis, all I can say is that it is about time that they started to take decisions in the interests of the whole United Kingdom and not who gains or loses on the electoral swings and roundabouts. Decisions should he taken in the interests of the whole United Kingdom rather than on the number of seats the Government may or may not lose at the next general election.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it is not my intention now to raise the question of the political motivation, if any, of the Government in putting forward these proposals; or the political motivation, if any, of the Opposition in resisting the proposals. I think that we on these Benches would say that the Government have had a difficult decision to take. They have taken a long time about it. It is easy to understand their decision not to entertain the last-minute new offer from Rosyth. The news will be sad for Rosyth and Scotland, especially in view of the pledges made to them in the past, about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke perfectly correctly. The pledges were quite clear that they were to have the Trident refitting task.
On the other hand, I must concede that the Government have offered Rosyth quite substantial conscience money in the allocation programme that they have stated. The refit of 18 major warships is a substantial offer. It is a refit outside the competitive process. I should like the noble Viscount to comment on that point. Elsewhere in the Statement the Secretary of State points out that the competitive process has reduced the overall bids of the two sides by £250 million. He said:
"I make no apologies for allowing the competitive process to push the costs down to the benefit of both the Royal Navy and the taxpayer".
It occurs to me, however, that the withdrawal of 18 major warship refittings from the competitive process is likely to increase the cost to the Royal Navy and to the taxpayer. I do not oppose this proposal for allocation£far from it. But I would like the noble Viscount to explain what is the cost of removing this very considerable project from the competitive process. The Statement should have made some reference to that. It is a major factor involving the

519
Government in their attempt to square the circle on this matter. I suspect that somewhere in Whitehall there is a Treasury paper estimating the extent of that cost, and without opposing the proposal, I should like to know what it is.
We could then ask: is it right that the Navy should pay that cost? It will indeed fall on the Navy. It will lead to the cancellation or postponement of projects in order to balance the budget. It is a question as to whether perhaps the Scottish Office or the Department of Employment should pay part of it. The Government had a very difficult problem, and they have obviously done their best to work out carefully the relative cost of the two bids and to do justice to both sides. But there is a hidden cost behind this Statement, and I am sorry that the noble Viscount has not divulged it to the House.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, found the Statement depressing. He asked a number of questions which were of some interest—certainly to me, and I hope also to noble Lords. He asked whether good faith could be placed in the assurances that the Government have given today. I do not want in any way to make a cheap party political point to the noble Lord, but I would infinitely prefer to rely on the good faith of this Government than on an Opposition whose representative in another place was perfectly happy to put the British nuclear deterrent into future disarmament negotiations. If that happened, I suspect that under a Labour government there would not be much in the way of good faith that Labour Party supporters in Rosyth could rely on.
The noble Lord also asked what would be the effect on the Scottish economy. We are well aware of the dependence of the Scottish economy, and indeed of the West Country economy, on the Navy's efforts at Rosyth and Devonport. We are equally conscious of the economic difficulties that both areas have been suffering. Were I to draw a comparison between the current official unemployment rates in Scotland and those in the West Country, I suspect that the West Country would suffer greatly. I know that it is sometimes very difficult in our confrontational politics to accept this in public, and for that reason I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for his cautious welcome of the Statement. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Government found themselves reduced to a very difficult decision. The factors that had to be taken into account in coming to a decision between the two dockyards were very finely balanced, as the Statement, I believe, makes clear. In the end, because only one dockyard is possible under present conditions (or indeed economically) for nuclear refitting, it is perfectly clear that if there is a difference between the two we have to estimate where that difference comes. That difference came down essentially to price.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked how the decision was made. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested that in coming to their decision and announcing it, the Government were breaking undertakings given by my
520
noble friend Lord Younger during the 1980s. He asked the question: what has happened in the meantime? I think the noble Lord knows as well as I do what has happened in the meantime. It is made perfectly clear in the Statement. What has happened in the meantime is that the Berlin Wall has come down. The number of nuclear submarines which the defence department feels it has to maintain is being reduced. It is therefore cost-effective only to refit those submarines in one yard. One yard can cope not only with the hunter-killer submarines, but also with the four Trident submarines. It would be thoroughly irresponsible for any government, particularly when they had to face the Public Accounts Committee in another place to account for their decision, to keep open two dockyards for nuclear refitting at a time when it would be grossly extravagant to do so. I am sure that anybody who looks at this matter with any form of dispassion—as I know the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does—would accept that only one dockyard is sensible under present circumstances.
The noble Lord asked, with an admirable rhetorical flourish, whether Rosyth would merely be a place where old nuclear submarines would be buried. It is perfectly possible to move decommissioned nuclear submarines, and studies will be made in that respect to see what is the most cost-effective way of dealing with them. But, certainly, there is no dedication on the part of Her Majesty's Government to keep Rosyth as a nuclear graveyard. Very much the reverse. Apart from the allocated programme, which the Statement mentions, it is perfectly clear not only that there will be substantial activity there, but also that the naval base will continue substantially unaffected by the changes.
The noble Lord also asked whether the Government's proposals are enough to keep Rosyth going. It is perfectly clear from the Statement that many of the stories which the press has been peddling with such gusto over the past few months anticipated an announcement which would force the Government to anticipate very much more substantial redundancies in Rosyth if they plumped for Devonport than in fact we estimate will be the case. We are perhaps rather more confident than the noble Lord is in the skill, self-reliance and adaptability of the people of Scotland. If I may in part answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, put to me, one of the reasons why we were so happy to produce a 12-year transition period rather than the 10 years asked for by the Opposition spokesman, Mr. George Foulkes, in another place was that we were well aware that a period of readjustment would be necessary in order to give Rosyth a chance to be able to compete—I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will forgive me—on a level playing field with other dockyards in bidding for other work; Ministry of Defence work and other work.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indulged in a most agreeable piece of knockabout, if I may say so. He questioned the reason for the Government's decision. He suggested that it was no more nor less than a political "stitch up". I am well aware that it is very easy for the Front Bench representatives of the

521
Labour Party to make such a remark. We know that the Labour Party virtually does not exist any more in the south western peninsula and that one of its few remaining bastions in the United Kingdom lies in the industrial belt in Scotland. No doubt that makes them somewhat parti pris in this matter, rather more so perhaps than the Liberal Party, who have a somewhat different difficulty. We are aware that the right honourable Member for Yeovil is rather closer to Devonport than is his party's defence spokesman who, I understand, represents a Fife constituency. Therefore, it is perhaps all the more understandable, were I to impute low motives (which I certainly do not) to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the Liberal Party should feel constrained to take a more detached attitude to these matters than the noble Lord, Lord Williams, might feel inclined to do.
Finally. I come to the very pertinent question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I am grateful for the welcome (however guarded, which is understandable) that he gave to the decision that the Government have announced. The allocated programme, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, is not as effective a means of ensuring best value to the taxpayer as is competition. Despite the greatly improved and constantly improving procurement and contract methods of the Ministry of Defence, there is no doubt that competitive processes are more effective in securing a contract, as the last few months have shown.
Nevertheless, particularly in the light of the debate in your Lordships' House over the past couple of days, cohesion funds are perhaps the sort of things which on the whole are accepted by your Lordships as desirable in equalising the economic condition of different parts of the country. Also, in order to give Rosyth a chance, we will forgo in the intervening 12 years some element of the competition that eventually we shall fully impose upon Rosyth after 2005, merely to try to give Rosyth a chance to attain that level playing field, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is so dismissive as an expression. We believe that that is a price well worth paying, particularly when, as the Statement says, it is perfectly clear that even during the transition period a greater proportion of the refit programme for the surface fleet will be competed for than at present.
I apologise for the length of my reply but there were a number of questions asked. In conclusion, I am content to rest (as I do not often find myself content to rest) on the judgment of The Times in this matter. Anticipating the announcement that we have made today, the headlme in today's issue reads:
"Taxpayers are clear winners in contest for Navy contract".
6.55 p.m.
Lord King of Wartnaby: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the noble Viscount's explanation of the sad tidings. I should tell the House that I have a vested interest. I am chairman of Babcock International, the controlling shareholder of Babcock Thorn, which manages the Rosyth dockyards. In addition, 1 happen to be the largest employer
522
—not in shape but in fact—of engineering labour in Scotland. At least I was until this afternoon. I must begin tomorrow to look at new numbers.
We have been speaking about being near to Devonport, near to Plymouth and being an MP here or elsewhere. Let us turn away from all that and consider Rosyth: the community, the manner in which it has grown over the years, the skills that exist there and the dedication of the people. They can make maps, repair nuclear engines and build ships. But they are not best known or best qualified for surface ship refitment. For that Devonport has one of the best facilities anywhere in the world. At this time Devonport has a workload and a workforce. It may be that with the addition of the Trident submarines to its programme, it will recruit more people. Some skills will have to be recruited for that.
So far as concerns Rosyth, we shall have to learn to develop the business that we have. It is with sadness that I see the jolt to the pride of Rosyth, its people and its community. The Government have had a very difficult decision to make. But for the past two years workmen have been going home and have heard their wives asking, "Do you have a job? 'Will you have a job?" It is rather a pity that one cannot bring decisions forward a little. The uncertainty about whether or not one has employment must be as unbearable as the uncertainty of not knowing whether or not one will get whatever it is one most wants, So there is disappointment.
There is some uncertainty about the £64 million alleged difference in cost and the 450 redundancies at Rosyth. I wonder how the Government arrived at those figures. We shall wish to examine the details of the proposed allocated programme which, to the Government's credit, certainly sounds impressive. I presume that all these matters will be included in the consultative document. I ask the noble Viscount to confirm that. He shakes his head—up and down, I think.
Finally, despite my sadness and regret at today's announcement, I reaffirm our determination to serve the Royal Navy to the best of our ability and to provide the very best possible value for money for the taxpayer.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he said. The Navy has been consistently satisfied by the work that Rosyth has carried out on its behalf. I am sorry if my noble friend in any way is doubtful about the ability of the workforce to maintain those high standards. I hope that what I felt he was implying is not true. 'Those doubts are certainly not shared by the Ministry of Defence.
My noble friend asked by implication how we arrived at the 450 redundancies estimate. As the Statement says, the number of redundancies are entirely a matter for his company. At the same time, in order to make a reasonably clear estimate, we have an idea of what is likely to transpire. As my noble friend is aware, we tend to estimate the contracts in terms of man hours. Those man hours, on current working practices, can readily be translated into man years and therefore jobs.

523
I am grateful to my noble friend for the predictable undertaking he has given to make sure that the service that his company has given in the past, which is second to none, will continue in the future.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there is a certain irony in this announcement being made on the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn? There will be a feeling in Scotland tonight that it is the English getting their own back: they have waited a long time for it. I do not hold any grudges against Devonport—I want to make that clear—although I was sad at some of the tactics employed during the competitive bidding that was taking place.
The noble Viscount asks the rhetorical question about what has happened since the noble Lord, Lord Younger, gave the undertaking that if Scotland accepted Coulport and Faslane, we would get the nuclear refitting work at Rosyth. The answer is that we have the worst of both worlds. We have Coulport and Faslane but we do not have the nuclear refitting work at Rosyth. I am sure the Minister accepts that there will be some feeling of, if not betrayal, then certainly being let down, that we accepted Coulport and Faslane but have not received the other part of the bargain.
Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's view that the £236 million upgrading costs at Devonport cannot possibly remain constant? Before that capital is expended and the work completed, the strong possibility is that the upgrading work will cost much nearer £400 million.
This is a sorry day for Rosyth, for Fife, the Lothians and for central Scotland as a whole. But, in the words of a good doctor friend of mine, I never like to leave the patient without hope. In the 12 years that lie ahead we, as politicians, have a responsibility to make sure that the workforce at Rosyth sees a future way beyond that 12-year period.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am well aware of the close personal ties that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has with Rosyth. He spoke movingly in our recent debate on the subject in terms which I shall long remember. However, I thought that the English had replied to Bannockburn with Flodden and that we decided then to call it a day. The compromise reached between the noble Lord's nationals and the English was that the Scots would come down to London to govern us and that people like the noble Lord would dominate your Lordships' House in the way that they do.
With regard to Coulport and Faslane, I am well aware that Dumbarton District Council is a nuclear-free zone. Nevertheless, the biggest concentration of nuclear power east of the Atlantic and west of the Urals provides the councillors and their constituents in the nuclear-free zone with 3,000 jobs. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that if what he implies happened, and we were to close it down, both he and I would be extremely interested in the reaction
524
to that proposal of the nuclear-free zone council. I hope that it would resist it. However, we are unlikely to put such a proposal to the test.
Like the noble Lord, I have enormous faith in the capacity of the Scottish people, particularly the people of the Scottish Lowlands and the industrial belt, to adapt and compete. Like him, I have absolute confidence that they will show that they are a match for the English any day.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, in addition to the considerations which he has so eloquently set out, there are also strategic and operational arguments in favour of Devonport? Is it not the fact that the Trident submarine, in the event of major war, would be expected to operate from the open Atlantic? Is it not a much nearer and quicker route to the open Atlantic from Devonport than it would be going out into the North Sea from Rosyth?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have certainly heard that case argued in a number of quarters. People with a greater knowledge of naval strategy than I have told me that the case between Devonport and Rosyth—taking into account the factors my noble friend mentioned—is evenly balanced.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Minister referred to the unemployment problems which may be occasioned in both areas. He said what he suspected the result would be. Is that the extent of the Government's analysis? The Minister nods. Perhaps he will allow me to finish the question before nodding or shaking his head. When I have finished the question, perhaps he will answer it, though I doubt it. If that is not the extent of the analysis and the Government have made an analysis of the consequences of the social and employment prospects in both areas, will they publish it and place it in the Library so that we can all see it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the best indication that I can give is to refer the noble Lord to the answer I attempted to give a moment ago to my noble friend Lord King. We have a very clear idea of what the employment consequences of MoD actions in these instances will be. We estimate work in terms of man hours. Assuming current working practices, that can be translated into man years and therefore numbers employed.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I knew the Minister would not answer the question. I shall repeat it. Was a proper analysis made of those results? If so, will he put it in the Library or publish it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is an analysis. The exact employment consequences are a matter for the company. There is no doubt that the records of the Ministry of Defence show that, although our job is to defend the country and we leave the social consequences to other government departments, which are more than capable of looking after those matters, we have shown a sense of considerable responsibility in taking into account the consequences of our actions. If the noble Lord doubts that, I would

525
refer him to the managers of the Plymouth urban renewal programme. He can ask them how much money the Ministry of Defence has contributed from its small budget to that programme.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the speech I made during the short debate on the matter? If so, he will not be surprised to learn that I am extremely disappointed by the results of the study as between Devonport and Rosyth. Does he further accept that I am still convinced that the strategic proximity of Coulport and Faslane to Rosyth should have overpowered even the argument on the financial savings.
However, will my noble friend accept from me that at least one Scot will not claim that the game was rigged and that we were robbed? Does he accept that our right honourable friend Malcolm Rifkind will have ensured that it was done on a fair basis and that the figures were in favour of Devonport? If they had come out the other way, I would certainly have expected Rosyth to obtain the contract, regardless of other factors. Can he assure me that the guarantee of ships going to Rosyth in the future for 12 years is absolute and unconditional? Is it the case that the consultation paper will outline how Babcock Thorn will negotiate its contract with the Government and Navy for these ships?
Lastly, does my noble friend agree with me that the positive response from our noble friend Lord King—who must be much more disappointed even than I—at least suggests that the company and the workforce there will try to make the best of what they will consider to be a bad job?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I know all too well—particularly as I recall his most eloquent speech during our recent debate on the subject—the fervour with which he has espoused the cause of nuclear refitting at Rosyth. I am all the more grateful to him for the generous and fair-minded way in which he has responded to this afternoon's announcement. I am only too pleased to associate myself with the remarks that he has made about my noble friend Lord King whom I know both of us greatly admire.
As far as the Ministry of Defence is concerned, the 12-year allocated programme is a very clear and unequivocal commitment. I will not try to repeat to your Lordships the reasons for it. I have already attempted to do so this afternoon. The consultative paper will, I believe, go into the arguments and financial considerations in greater detail than it has been possible for me and my right honourable friend to do this afternoon.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that whichever way the decision had gone criticism would have been made of it and that wherever the nuclear base was sited the social effects would have been the same? I cannot understand how the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, can believe that it will affect only Scotland.
526
Will the Minister also agree that the suggestion of a saving in public expenditure funded by the taxpayer of £64 million is something that no government can overlook? Is it not the case, reflecting on the position now, the savings to the taxpayer and the fact that the surface work will go to Rosyth and the nuclear work to Devonport, that people will think that this is a fair decision?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Clark. He is a well known exponent of the importance of rigour in matters of public expenditure. In 'that regard his record in another place stands unchallenged. I have no doubt at all that he is right when he says that defence Ministers and other Ministers in Her Majesty's Government approach this matter in the spirit of trying to do the best under the circumstances in terms of cost-effectiveness and fairness to the people involved.
I have to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence was in a particularly difficult position as a Scottish Member of Parliament. If your Lordships want any guarantee of the fairness and dispassion with which Ministers have approached this question, I believe that I need only refer to the potential consequences for my right honourable friend if he had not taken this decision in the skilful and dispassionate way that he has. That is perhaps the best guarantee I can give to my noble friend Lord Clark on the subject.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that that would be as nothing to the consequences in the southwest of England for his party?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am conscious of the time. All I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is that he is in a very difficult glasshouse if he wishes to pursue this subject. I referred to it earlier. I would hate that he and I should come to blows on the subject.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
7.14 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

New Towns (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I 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. —(Lord Finsberg.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

527
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SKELMERSDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power of delegation]:
Lord Finsberg Lord Finsberg moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("Agency") and insert ("Commission").
The noble Lord said: I apologise for the need for this Committee stage, which is due to a typing and printing error and nothing more. I move that on page 1, line 14, we leave out "Agency" and insert "Commission".
Viscount Goschen: The Government are content with the amendment of my noble friend as it is a purely drafting measure to correct an error on the face of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendment.

Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
We are now approaching the end of our consideration of the Bill. When I introduced it at Second Reading I went into its background, that is, the doubts and confusion that had arisen over local authorities' powers to provide technical advice and assistance overseas, and the need for a clear power to allow for this kind of work to go ahead. I am pleased to be able to say that we have had good, constructive debates at Second Reading and Committee stage and that the Bill has had strong support from all sides of your Lordships' House. Clearly, we are dealing with a much-needed piece of legislation that fills an important gap in the powers of local authorities.
I am pleased to say that we have also improved the Bill during our deliberations. I am sure that our colleagues in another place will view the amendments we have made in that light. At Committee stage we agreed to an amendment that would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities about how the powers provided by the Bill would operate. The Government have assured me that they do not intend to use this in any prescriptive way. All that is intended is to provide a helpful guide to the non-expert, written in plain English.
I understand that not only are the Government committed to consulting fully the local authority associations on this matter, but are also content to consider a joint document if the associations so wish.
We have also added to the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult representatives of local government before issuing a general authorisation under the Bill. Both these amendments—the requirement for guidance and consultation—are meant to signal the Government's intention to continue the close co-operation with local government
528
that has been a feature of the passage of this Bill. Even more importantly, we have introduced into the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to add by statutory instrument to the list of types of local authority covered by the Bill. Obviously, this is to keep the door open either for a change in the Government's mind about whether parish and community councils should be covered by the Bill, or for the possibility in the longer term of structural changes that cannot be foreseen at the present moment.
The Bill will provide a clear and dependable power for local authorities to provide advice and assistance overseas. The spur to the Bill has been the need to help newly established democratic local authorities in central and eastern Europe, but the effect of the Bill is not confined to these countries. It will enable our local authorities to assist their equivalents anywhere in the world.
Before I sit down I would again like to pay tribute to the part that the sponsor of the Bill in another place has played in bringing us to this stage and to the hard work of all the officials, both in government and in the local authority associations, and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for the helpful and constructive way in which he has taken part in the debates. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Third Reading. With the agreement of another place the Bill will be given Royal Assent before the Summer Recess. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Flather.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches I re-echo that which has been said in another place and in this House at the various stages. We warmly welcome this initiative and the spirit in which the Bill has been brought forward. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, has as wide an experience as I had at local government level and that she can see from the sharp end that this is a tool which can be used, and I hope will be used, by our colleagues in local government. It is not big and it does not pretend that it will solve a great many problems. But for those councils and councillors who want to respond to the desperate needs of some of our fellow human beings in other parts of the world, this is the tool.
It was fashioned, I know, in another place where it was looked after very warmly by my former colleague, Jim Lester, and others. This is a very happy occasion. I thank the noble Baroness most sincerely for looking after the Bill. I repeat our deep regard for her and our respect for the fact that during the passage of the Bill she suffered a personal tragedy. We admire the fact that she has persisted in bringing the measure before us. We wish it well.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I endorse entirely the comments made by my noble friend Lady Flather about the interesting and constructive nature of the debates we have had on the Bill. We agree that the amendments added to the Bill by your Lordships' House have improved the Bill and have added a welcome degree of flexibility.

529
I can confirm that the Government will consult the associations closely on the guidance that is to be provided and that it is not meant to be in any way prescriptive. We shall ensure, through our consultations, that the guidance is as clear and helpful as we can make it. In addition, if the associations would prefer us to do so, we are happy to issue a joint guidance note.
On the general authorisation, our agreement to the amendment requiring the Secretary of State to consult before issuing a general authorisation is, as my noble friend has said, intended to signal our intention to maintain the co-operation with local government that has been such a feature of the Bill. We have said repeatedly that we have no intention of making the requirement for consent into a burden or heavy restraint on local government. On the contrary, the consent requirement is there simply as a safety net—to protect and to reassure the council taxpayer. We shall consult local government and we intend the general authorisation to be as wide as possible so that the requirement for specific consent is very much the exception.
The Government have strongly supported the Bill throughout its passage through Parliament and we are pleased that it has had the strong support of the Opposition parties and the local authority associations. I too would like to praise the hard work of and the co-operation between government and local government officials, the role of the sponsor of the Bill in another place—my honourable friend the Member for Broxtowe—and the helpful way in which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has contributed to the debate. Most of all, I should like to pay tribute to the conscientious way in which my noble friend Lady Flather has acted as the sponsor of the Bill in your Lordships' House and taken forward this most useful Bill.
I can only echo what has already been said. This is a minor piece of legislation but it will have significant effects on the lives of many people, sometimes in little heard of places. II will give our local authorities, with all their skills, expertise and experience, the power to advise and assist on local government problems in other countries. My noble friend's Bill has the full support of the Government and I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words of both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Flather.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993
7.25 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I should like to speak also to the Castle Vale Housing Action Trust Order. These orders seek to designate two further housing action trusts (or HATs) following on the success of those in Hull, Waltham Forest and Liverpool. These projects demonstrate that HATs have come of age as vehicles for tackling the problems of our very worst estates. These orders, the fourth and fifth, establish HATs for Castle Vale in Birmingham and Tower Hamlets in London. Tenants in Castle Vale and Tower Hamlets voted by clear majorities of 92 per cent. and 65 per cent. respectively for the establishment of the trusts.
Housing action trusts are important mechanisms for tackling the very worst estates by adopting a comprehensive and integrated approach. dedicated to the task in hand. They are flexible and adaptable. They can alleviate the problems of inner city estates such as Tower Hamlets and estates like Castle Vale, located on the outskirts of a city yet isolated from it. That is because the trusts are about much more than improving the fabric of the buildings, important though that is. They will improve housing, manage housing effectively, encourage diversity of ownership and tenure and facilitate the improvement of living conditions in the area through employment, training and environmental initiatives. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I may have the advantage over the Minister to the extent that when the issue of the creation of HATs was before the House two or three years ago I spoke from these Benches on housing matters. I can recall—and no doubt those who guide the noble Viscount can recall—that the initial reaction of the Labour Party to the principle of HATs was very much one of hostility. We felt that way for the simple reason that in our view the local authorities had been starved of the money required to do that which the HATs now do—to improve wretched housing—and we felt that the money ought properly to have been made available through the normal HIPs and in other ways to allow local authorities to do the work. A fierce political battle was fought, but from my experience as a former constituency member, and having watched these matters for years, the wretchedness of the housing conditions has at the end of the day won.
I would say only that the Government have learnt over the period to adapt, to bend and to accept in reality changes which are designed to make the HAT more acceptable not just to the Labour Party but to many other individuals. The principle which the

531
Minister has raised—local people having the right to have a big say in what they do—is one thing. But I can assure the Minister that the overwhelming imperative of local people is not necessarily to be able to decide what they do but to get their hands on the resources so that someone, whether it is the council or the created bodies—I have read the documents and the Government have moved from a limited representation of those who are affected to a larger representation—can do the work.
I should like to point out that the Government's mood changes. When the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill was before the House two or three weeks ago the Labour Party sought strenuously to give council tenants the same right and ability to determine their landlord as that which has been created here. It was not to be. But this is not the occasion to fight old battles.
The people who are to benefit and gain advantage from the money that the Government are making available are not concerned about the niceties which as politicians we in this Chamber and another place seek to add to or imprint on legislation. In my view the wretched conditions in which many people live will be improved by the action of HATs. We shall watch very closely to see whether there are lessons not just for the Labour Party but for the way in which the housing stock of this country is managed. We certainly have no objection to these two orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Castle Vale Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order with our consideration of the previous Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved. [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1993
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the orders laid before the House on 25th May, 8th, 11th, 14th and 17th June be approved [32nd, 33rd and 34th Reports from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft orders in my name. The five orders before the House today seek your Lordships' approval for emergency orders to ban fishing for, variously, mussels, queens, scallops, razor clams and oysters in defined areas of sea around the Orkney Islands and an area of sea off the Caithness coast. This is due to a build up of the naturally occurring toxin, paralytic shellfish poison, or PSP as it is known.
The decision to make these orders was based on those test results from our PSP monitoring programme which were over the internationally-agreed action level of 400 units. Our aim in making the ban is to ensure effective protection of the public from PSP toxin with the minimum disruption to the shellfish market.
I would like to assure your Lordships that the orders will only remain in force for as long as is necessary and no longer. They will be revoked individually as soon as the results of continued sampling and medical and scientific advice indicate that it is safe to do so.
I have arranged for copies of maps showing the areas in question to be available for your Lordships. Two of the orders concern Scapa Flow; two cover an area north of the Orkney mainland and the fifth order applies to an area of sea off the Caithness coast. There has been no significant downturn in toxin levels since the orders were made and, regrettably, I submit that

533
the five orders before us today are still necessary for the protection of public health. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the orders laid before the House on 25th May, 8th, 11th, 14th and 17th June be approved [32nd, 33rd and 34th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Carmichael. I do not intend to muscle in very mach on the act. He has asked me to say that he fully understands and supports the action. Is the Minister in a position to indicate whether any representations have been made against the orders? As someone who is very much an observer, but who enjoys seafood very mach, what the Minister and the House seek to do is to protect both the palate and also the livelihood of the people who live in that part of the world. We have no objection to these orders. Can the Minister say whether the actions which these orders take and make cause resentment, hostility or opposition in any quarter? If the Minister is able to say that there is no opposition I shall be happy. Of course, it makes no difference because we welcome the orders and have no objection to them.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is not here. There is always a delicate balance to be struck. As the noble Lord indicated, he likes shellfish and we wish to protect the market and the livelihood of those who fish for shellfish in Scotland. However, we also must have regard to the best interests of the consumer and what is considered on a scientific and medical basis to be an acceptable level in the build-up of this naturally occurring toxin. The levels here are too high.
I do not believe that there is any hostility. What is important, as I sought to indicate, is that as soon as it is safe to do so these orders shall be lifted. I give an undertaking to the noble Lord that that will be done in the best interests of the fishermen.
On Question, Motions agreed to.
Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.35 to 8 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(f)").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments deals with a number of matters: with transport, networks, telecommunications and energy. It may be convenient to the Committee to consider in the one debate all the amendments which seek to exclude some or all of the provisions in the Maastricht Bill from
534
being applicable in British law, which provisions cover networks, transport, telecommunications and energy, given that those provisions are similar.
The relevant articles of the treaty to which these amendments have been tabled are the following: first, Article 3(f). Your Lordships will recall that under Article 3 on page 9 is a whole series of subsections labelled (a), (b), (c), (d) and so on, each listing what the treaty calls an "activity" which, under Maastricht, is to come within the competence and control of European institutions, principally the Commission and the Council. Article 3(f) lists the activity as,
"a common policy in the sphere of transport".
Article 3(n) relates to,
"encouragement for the establishment and development of trans-European networks".
Article 3(t) refers to,
"measures in the spheres of energy, civil protection and tourism".
Looking further on in the treaty, Article 75 on page 15 states that the Council, after consultation, shall lay down:
"(a) common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States;
(b) the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State:
(c) measures to improve transport safety;
(d) any other appropriate provisions",
whatever that means. How much wider does that take us than the specific items which have been referred to?
Further on again in the treaty there are three important articles on the subject of trans-European networks: Articles 129b, 129c and 129d. Article 1291) includes the words:
"the Community shall contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures.
Within the framework of a system of open and competitive markets, action by the Community shall aim at promoting the interconnection and inter-operability of national networks as well as access to such networks. It shall take account in particular of the need to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community".
I suppose that we are one of the "peripheral regions", if not the peripheral region, bearing in mind that there are 20 miles of water between us and the Continent itself.
Article 129c seeks to establish what it calls "guidelines" which the Community is to pursue for these trans-European networks. I shall summarise them because the articles are extremely wordy. Under this article the Community shall identify projects of common interest, and,
"shall implement any measures that may prove necessary to ensure the inter-operability of the networks, in particular in the field of technical standardization".
The Community may support financially projects through feasibility studies. loan guarantees or interest rate subsidies or through direct subsidies through the Cohesion Fund.
Finally, Article 129d defines the procedure under which those guidelines are to be adopted by the Community. The Committee should note the words in Article 129b that the Community wishes to operate,
"Within the framework of a system of open and competitive markets".

535
That is an expression of good free-market principles—that is, good from the point of view of the Government because they are in favour of good free-market principles. Indeed, all of us are now in favour of those free-market principles, even, I think, my noble friends on the Front Bench. I understand that they are probably in favour of them. However, in spite of such an expression of good free-market principles, the Community is to seek to promote the interconnection and inter-operability of national networks as well as access to such networks. It will seek to favour transport to and from more remote areas; set out guidelines on objectives, priorities and projects of common interest; take power to implement any measures to ensure inter-operability, including technical standardisation; finance out of Community funds, including the Cohesion Fund, projects towards this inter-operability; and take powers to promote co-ordination between the 12 states.
But, with just a slight genuflection to the free market, we are told that the Community shall only take account of the potential economic viability of the projects—I repeat "only take account". The article states that the Community,
"may decide to co-operate with third countries to promote projects of mutual interest and to ensure the inter-operability of networks".
When the noble Baroness replies perhaps she will comment on the phrase,
"take into account the potential economic viability of the projects",
bearing in mind the Government's view that, in general. our own networks should be profitable and should stand on their own two feet.
Is this not a prime example of governmental—in this case supra-governmental—intervention from Brussels in the market while still pretending to respect the market? The treaty claims to want "open and competitive markets". It then weakens that fine ideal when it shall only "take into account" the potential economic viability of the projects. And so it goes on and on and on.
What concerns me about these provisions is that the institutions of the Community will become more and more involved in the detail of transportation, although I understand that it will not be bringing forward particular projects—at least I hope that it will not—and that it will not be financing them. However, the Community's institutions will identify where certain roads will be placed—where they should go from and where they should go to and what sort of roads they will be. I wonder whether that will impinge on the decisions of our local planning authorities and whether pressure will be put on local planning authorities to provide such networks where perhaps the local community does not want them. We have already seen how the Community can put pressure on governments. We saw that, and indeed are still seeing the results of that, in the extension of the M.27 where in fact Mr. Carlo Ripa Di Meana sought to intervene. He was the Transport Commissioner, I think, was he not?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Mr. Carlo Ripa Di Meana —commonly known as "Reaper"—was Commissioner for the Environment. It was his job to enforce environmental law in the Community.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank my noble friend. Yes, I remember now: he was known as "the grim reaper". He did intervene and he caused a great many problems for Her Majesty's Government. My noble friend may very well have been pleased that he was able to cause such problems, but the fact is that that road had been through all our planning procedures and had been agreed by inspectors and by Ministers. It had therefore been agreed by the institutions of this country. I sincerely hope that these trans-European networks are not going to result in more interference of that sort from the European Community, and indeed from commissioners.
Of course there are other matters too, such as energy. I really would like to know exactly what that means: the environment, energy and what-have-you. To a large degree they are all mixed up. I want the assurance that the European Community cannot in any way under these provisions get their hands on North Sea oil. They have been trying to do that for a very long time. I want to be assured that there is no way in which they can, through this treaty, claim ownership of North Sea oil. I think that is extremely important. I also want to be assured that these trans-network links in energy are not going to put more of our miners and other energy workers out of work. The noble Baroness will know exactly what I mean. In fact I do not want subsidised French nuclear generation to put coal miners in this country, who are not subsidised now and will not be in the future, out of work. And of course I include gas workers and oil workers in that as well. These are all very important matters, about which we need reassurance.
Again on the environment, I want to ensure and I want the Government to ensure that we are not going to be put in a position by the institutions of Europe of making too fast decisions, which would harm the economic interests of this country. For example, I do not want to see a situation in which the environmentalists are able to aid and abet the destruction of a great industry, which I fear unwittingly they did over the coal industry. It would have been much more difficult to close collieries in this country if the coal industry and coal generation had not been accused of belching CO2 and acid rain into the air. But what have we now found out about acid rain? The latest report says that acid rain had nothing to do with deforestation in Europe and nothing to do with the destruction of the German forests: it was all to do with the drought. They go further and suggest that the CO20has acted as a fertiliser to help regenerate the forests. So that in talking about environmental issues we want to ensure that Europe and the institutions of Europe do not rush us into decisions which will cost the lives of great industries, not to mention perhaps thousands of millions of pounds in addition in retro-fitting power stations. That of course increases the cost of electricity to the consumer. All these things we need to be concerned about. I am sure that the noble Baroness will

537
understand what 1 am saying and I hope that she will have some sympathy with it. I look forward to her reply in due course.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: First I should say how pleased I was to come into the Chamber and hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, proposing these amendments, as I had undertaken to him that I would do so. Unfortunately, I was caught taking an excessive minute of pleasure with my wife. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was there as well, I hasten to add, so there was nothing improper involved: we were in the Churchill Room and I was just a little late in returning to this debate. I should say that I was much impressed with the noble Lord's immediate grasp of all these matters, because I had been struggling with them earlier in the day to prepare myself.
Let me say right at the beginning, because I think it may assist my noble friend Lady Chalker, that one thing above all which I should like her to deal with in connection with all these amendments—as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has observed, they relate to Article 3, Article 75, Article 129(b) and, I think, Article 129(c) as well—is to tell us whether the powers to which they relate are matters which are within the exclusive or sole competence of the Community, or not.
There should be no difficulty in answering this question, because of course it is a very important one and upon it depends whether they are subject to the doctrine of subsidiarity. Ministers have said that it is very difficult for them to answer the question in the round, that is, which matters are subject to the doctrine of competence and therefore immune to the doctrine of subsidiarity. But this is a specific question: these are all specific policies and they are specific powers. What I want to know for each of them, item by item precisely, is which ones are within the sole competence of the Community so that subsidiarity therefore has no effect upon them, and which are not and which therefore are not subject to the doctrine of subsidiarity. I know that officials will have this information because, quite clearly, it has been thought through by Her Majesty's Government during the negotiation of the treaty, since it is such an important matter and subsidiarity has been such an enormous success for Her Majesty's Government. I know that my noble friend would want to explain in great detail which of these matters will be affected by the doctrine of subsidiarity and which will not.
Let me turn then to Amendment No. 27 itself. If your Lordships would turn to page 1, line 9, you will see that it relates to Article 3(f), relating to a common policy in the sphere of transport. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is present and therefore I do not have to explain again that this is a parliamentary procedure with which the rest of us are familiar. We understand that this is a device by which we shall discuss matters relating to the principles of a common policy on transport—
Lord Tordoff: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It may be a parliamentary procedure that has
538
been invented for the purposes of this Bill. However, I must tell the noble Lord that prior to his presence in this place we did not on the whole conduct the Committee stages of Bills in a way that allowed people to make Second Reading speeches all the way through. I am in some difficulty because I was contemplating speaking on two of the amendments. However, as I am told that they are not now amendments, they are pegs, I find it difficult to discuss them. I can join in the general discussion but I have better things to do. If the proceedings are just a dialogue between the noble Lord and the Front Bench, asking questions, I should have thought that it would have been better for all or us if the noble Lord had tabled them as a series of Questions for Written Answer.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend Lord Tebbit continues, I wish to point out with respect that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, knows that what he said is not absolutely correct. We used to have things called "probing amendments". These are probing amendments, which are designed to discuss the issue behind the actual amendment. Probing amendments are frequently meaningless in themselves but are tabled specifically to discuss the points behind the legislation. I have been a Member of this Chamber for about 22 years and that has been the procedure during the whole of that time. Therefore my noble friend Lord Tebbit, clever as he is, has not invented a totally new procedure for this Chamber.
Lord Tebbit: Perhaps I may be permitted to continue my speech lest it develops into an exchange between my noble friend Lord Onslow arid the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I can simplify the matter considerably by suggesting that, if the noble Lord is not particularly interested in these matters and wants to hide them all under the carpet arid ram this Bill through without the people of this Kingdom being informed other than by the process for Written Answer, he takes a little pleasure somewhere else. In the meantime—
Lord Tordoff: If the noble Lord—
Lord Tebbit: I shall give way to the noble Lord in a moment. In the meantime I shall repeat that the Bill before this Committee is an unusual Bill. As the noble. Lord knows, it is a slim Bill—here it is. It is as I said yesterday—and I shall repeat it for the noble Lord's benefit—the sliver of ice which shows above the water—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Hear, hear!
Lord Tebbit: And it has the iceberg of the treaty behind it. The only way in which we can discuss the treaty is by the device which we are using. Quite clearly, the noble Lord has no interest in discussing the treaty. He belongs to that school of thought which believes that the sooner it is through the better, and the less discussion there is the better. I take a different view. I believe that these are serious issues which should be discussed seriously.
Lord Tordoff: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. This level of acerbity is unusual in this Chamber, as Members will know. I repeat that Members who want to join in the debate on particular amendments are in some difficulty. As my noble friend Lord Ezra pointed out, there were deficiencies in an amendment which would normally be a reasonable source of discussion. On many occasions I have heard the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, for instance, refer to the fact that amendments tabled from this side of the Chamber are deficient and go on at some length about that.
My problem is that I cannot debate these amendments. Every time that I seek to do so, every time that I seek to draw the Committee's attention to a fallacy in the amendment, I am told, "We are not talking about the amendments; we are talking about pegs". I understand what the noble Lord is saying; that he wants to debate the Maastricht Treaty. We are not debating the Maastricht Treaty; we are debating the Bill which is before the Committee. I see no other objective in being here.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for saying that he does not want to debate the treaty. I do want to debate the treaty. This is a perfectly respectable procedural way of doing so. If the noble Lord wants to debate the Bill he is more than welcome to do so during the course of our proceedings. However, we are not able to debate, for example, that Article 3 of the treaty shall stand part, as he knows full well. I should have thought that as a Member of the Liberal Democrat Benches he would have welcomed the manner in which we have found it possible to debate a treaty, which would otherwise go through without debate by the Royal Prerogative.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I support my noble friend Lord Tebbit by saying that some of us who have been in the Chamber for only three years sit on your Lordships' Select Committee and have been staggered to discover the powers of the Executive to sign a treaty of this nature even if we are not able to debate it. The proposed treaty, together with the treaty known as the Single European Act, has been described as the greatest constitutional change in this country since the Petition of Right. The Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred clearly imports Titles II, III and IV of the Treaty on European Union into British law—or so it proposes. I believe that the concept that this Chamber should not be free to discuss those Titles is little short of outrageous—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may—
Baroness Trumpington: I wonder whether a battered Baroness may bring a little sweetness and light back into the Chamber. I have no power to do anything but I should be happy if we could return to talking about the actual amendments which face us tonight or whatever way my noble friend Lord Tebbit believes that we should advance the evening.
Lord Tebbit: I believe that the advice that my noble friend Lady Trumpington has given is good advice. It is my intention to return to the matter of the treaty which is behind the Bill—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt—
Lord Tebbit: If the noble Lord will excuse me, I would rather take the advice of my noble friend Lady Trumpington for the moment. I am sure that later the noble Lord will have a point of substance as opposed to procedure.
If we return to the treaty we shall find that Article 3(f) on page 9 refers to "a common policy in the sphere of transport". I wish to understand what the Government understand to be the effect and the usefulness of these provisions. After all, we have before us the choice of cutting them out of the treaty. Theoretically at least—and I agree that it is highly theoretical—we may do so if we come to the conclusion that they do not have a useful purpose.
Will my noble friend explain the way in which that provision will affect cabotage? As Members of the Committee will know, the concept of cabotage is that of the transport of goods within the sovereignty of a particular territory. Will British ship owners be any more free after the passage of this treaty to carry goods between the ports of member states on the Continent of Europe? Does it take us forward in any way? Are there any restrictions on cabotage which restrain our shipping industry?
Those are simple and straightforward matters. We refer generally to cabotage in relation to shipping but the concept applies also to airlines. The European Community has been committed to the concept of the Common Market for 40 years or so—20 years since we joined—it and is now committed to the concept of a single market, which has now been in effect for more than six months. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bethell is no longer in the Chamber—I believe that he was here earlier—because he has done sterling work in pressing the Community towards allowing a common market, a single market, in air transport.
As Members of the Committee will know, it is not possible for British Airways, Virgin or British Midland or any other of the enormously successful totally unsubsidised private sector airlines to compete with their continental rivals. For example, they cannot pick up traffic in Paris to take to Dijon or carry traffic within the frontiers of Germany. Why is that so? Why are those restrictions still in place in a common market or a single market? When will they fall?
I know that Her Majesty's Government have been trying enormously hard to deal with those matters for many years. Indeed, I tried unsuccessfully to deal with them when I was the Minister responsible. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, tried unsuccessfully to deal with those matters when he was the Minister responsible before me. I am sure that had he been a transport commissioner—
Lord Clinton-Davis: I was.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My goodness, I did not notice that! I was going to say that he would have dealt with those matters successfully; but I shall have to rephrase that.
I am sure that the noble Lord did his very best to deal with them and to open up the market. Sadly, we have all failed. I was one of the earlier failures. Will the treaty open it up? Will the Treaty of Maastricht suddenly bring us a common market which will bring enormous benefits, of course to the peoples of Europe as consumers, but in particular will bring benefits to the British airline industry which is the most competitive, successful and virtually the only private sector unsubsidised industry within the European Community? That is a Community which has one of its guiding principles that we should ban state aids to industry. Tell that to the directors of Air France, not to mention many of the others.
Why are we still putting up with that? I am happy to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, because he probably knows better than I about these matters.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Is the noble Lord unaware of the fact that the Commission has very successfully brought proceedings in the European Court of Justice against the French on a number of occasions? It has invoked Article 85 of the competition articles very successfully against the French and indeed against others. The noble Lord is quite wrong to assert that somehow or other the French escape from the provisions of the competition articles. That is quite untrue.
Lord Tebbit: If they cannot escape from those provisions, why is it that France and others continue to subsidise their airlines?
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is another matter.
Lord Tebbit: The money is passed to their airlines with the nod of the Commission. Is it the same kind of arrangement about which my noble friend Lord Cockfield told us earlier today where there is a special arrangement between the Germans and the French on agriculture which means that they have vetos on those matters while the rest of us do not? What is it that is now restraining free and open competition in the airline markets?
If the treaty were working, we should have had that free and open competition years ago. Will this treaty make that happen? I am anxious that it should happen. When I fly to Edinburgh I should like to be able to choose whether to fly on British Airways, British Midland, Air France or Lufthansa, if they chose to provide those services. That is what an open and common market is about. Does this treaty advance that?
I turn to Amendment No. 35 relating to Article 3(n) which concerns the encouragement of the establishment and development of trans-European networks. When the treaty was first brought home in triumph from Maastricht when I was still in the House of Commons, there was a delicious moment when I asked innocently—because all my questions are
542
innocent—what is a trans-European network? Those who brought home the treaty were unable to tell me what it was. I found that extraordinary. They were in favour of those networks without knowing what they were. I am still not entirely clear in my mind as to what is the lucid and clear definition of trans-European networks. What is it that defines a trans-European network?
We should benefit from a definition. If we were discussing a conventional piece of legislation, there would be a definitions clause somewhere in the Bill. If such an expression as "trans-European network" had been used and it was unfamiliar, it would be defined. It is not so defined here. What is it? We can guess a little about what those things are but I should like the matter to be quite clear.
Under Title 12 we should look also at Article 129b.
Lord Swinfen: Is the noble Lord, Lord Harris, trying to address the Committee from a sedentary position?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Strangely enough, I am not. I am following with the closest attention the extremely interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful for that because I always follow the speeches of the noble Lord. Lord Harris, with great attention, too, for I have learnt already that it is not infrequently possible that I may learn something from him.
Article 129b refers to trans-European networks and refers to them in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures. Those are broad terms. How are they confined? Does "telecommunications" mean all forms of communications by cable, wire or radio? Is there some limitation on it? Is it the public telephone systems? Is it private circuits? I should remind Members of the Committee that I am a director of British Telecom plc, but I speak entirely for myself this evening and not in any way for that company. Are there powers which will affect the provision of private networks of telecommunications? Are there powers which could affect those new organisations such as Syncordia or British Telecom and their rivals on the Continent also? Does that mean that we shall, sooner rather than later, see proper competition in the field of telecommunications on the continent of Europe as well as in the United Kingdom? Does it mean that, had this treaty been in operation at the moment of German unification, the scandalous way in which, upon the bringing into the European Community of a new nation—East Germany—the telephone system of East Germany was merely annexed by the West German telephone company, without other telephone businesses in the European Community being given the opportunity to take it over or enter into partnership with it, would have been prevented? If I could be assured of that, my heart might warm a little to the treaty. If not, I fear that it will remain as cold as ice.
We know, of course, that Germany is an exception to the treaty. She has given herself an opt out from the provisions of the single currency. We know that she

543
has an opt out from the Treaty of Rome in that she can do private trade deals with the United States and so far as I know has not been referred to the court for those things. Would this treaty have prevented that anti-competitive act?
We should also explore whether this provision will give any powers to the Commission which it does not already have in relation to the powers of the regulator of our telecommunications industry; that is, Oftel. Is there any way in which the power over telecommunications networks within Europe can affect the regulation of our industry? Could it affect the operations of British Telecom and Cable and Wireless, which are being pushed into Europe reluctantly, against the protectionism of those who signed the Treaty of Rome so long before we did? Will it be a helpful influence or an unhelpful influence?
The measure is broadly drawn. I do not see that it could have any relevance to air traffic control. Could it have any relevance to air traffic control? Are there any powers here? After all, air traffic control is the very embodiment of an international network. Is it included? Are there any powers here? I do not know. The purpose of a probing amendment is that we should be informed and find out.
Does Article 129c give powers to subsidise? It would seem to do so as I read paragraph 1 at the third indent. Are my friends in the Government in favour of those powers to subsidise, or would they regard that as another example of—to use the phrase of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—"muddleheaded meddling" by the muddle-heads, presumably in the Commission, who meddle, according to the Prime Minister, who was in Eurosceptic mode when he said those things? I should like to know the answer. How are those powers to subsidise constrained, except by the observation to which I heard the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, refer that the Community's activities,
"shall take into account the potential economic viability of the projects".
I should have thought that whether the projects were viable was the overriding principle. It is not just a matter to be taken into account. It is a matter of prime importance.
Does Article 129c give powers to enforce standards in telecommunications? It appears that it might. Does that mean that we could have enforced a Eurostandard, for example, for mobile telephone systems? It might not be at all a bad idea to have a European standard for mobile telephone systems; but is that a gift which would come with this treaty, or is it a gift which would be denied to us?
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also raised the question of the relationship with things such as road planning. I realise that it was an environmental question which gave rise to the interference which we suffered recently over the extension to the M.27. My noble friend will know that it is hoped that in 1996 there will commence the construction of the north Birmingham relief road which will be the first private sector toll road in the United Kingdom. Will the Community have any role in relation to that road on
544
environmental grounds, technical grounds or any other grounds, or can we proceed with it entirely as a subsidiary matter?
I turn finally to Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 which relate to Article 75 on page 15. My noble friend Lady Chalker will correct me, I am sure, if I am wrong, but I believe that these provisions are broadly, if not entirely, unchanged from the existing form of the Treaty of Rome; but, as I understand it, the important change—these are important powers, and I shall just refresh the minds of Members of the Committee because I can see that my noble friend, as I do, has to scratch around a little through this complex treaty to find the right place—includes, for example:
"measures to improve transport safety; any other appropriate provisions".
I wonder whether one would get away with that sort of provision in British domestic legislation without a pretty rough ride. "Any other appropriate provisions", well, I should have enjoyed putting a catch-all provision of that kind into one or two pieces of legislation that I took through the other place, but I was never allowed to get away with it. But the big difference, as I understand it, is that these matters are now subject under the treaty to qualified majority voting.
Then there is,
"measures to improve transport safety".
We have an extraordinarily well developed system here of monitoring transport safety, and not least air transport safety. The CAA and the Air Registration Board are examples of British institutions which have been enormously successful. The ARB is accorded a respect by the American aviation airworthiness authorities which is not accorded to any other organisation in the world outside the United States. It is an organisation which is concerned with transport safety. I should be much reassured if my noble friend could tell me that there is no provision here which would or could affect the work of the ARB, particularly as this measure is now subject to qualified majority voting.
Having seen some of the things which have happened in other airworthiness authorities, I would be much happier, as a former professional pilot and as a current air transport passenger, with the knowledge that the Air Registration Board retained its powers in full and that they could not be interfered with in any way by this treaty. I accept that these may be the nightmare fears of little children dismissed by my noble friend Lady Chalker on the passage of the Single European Act in relation to the use of the veto. She dismissed those fears again on Second Reading in relation to the use of the veto. Just in order that my little head should sleep more securely, I should be glad if she could give me reassurance on these matters.
Lord Monson: I wish to speak briefly to Article 75 which is the subject, coincidentally, of Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, alluded to Article 75 in part, but I wish to go a little further into it. It provides that the Council shall lay down,
"the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State".

545
That sounds reasonable enough in principle provided the power is used to ensure a level playing field and not to tilt a level playing field. Will, for example, subsidised Greek road transport be competing fairly with non-subsidised British hauliers when they both operate, as eventually they will, in a country such as Germany? Article 75 also allows the council to lay down,
"common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States".
That seems to open the door to creeping, or even accelerated, protectionism. I remember well a few years ago when air fares between London and Geneva and London and Zurich were considerably lower than air fares between London and Lyons, London and Turin and London. and Stuttgart. Now the position is a little better: the differentials are not so great. However, there is no telling whether the former situation might not recur because the French and the Germans want to protect their railways. The Swiss do not run international railways and so it does not worry them. I feel that this measure could be used to block in some way cheap air fares between Britain and the United States, for example, and between Britain and Australia.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I am unhappy—hence Amendment No. 76—about the phrase "any other appropriate provisions". The phrase is far too wide, vague and all embracing. I do not know what will happen when the European Court gets its hands on the phrase. We shall see appropriate provisions included in no uncertain fashion.
Lord Aldington: I hope I may interrupt the noble Lord. Does he realise that Article 75 is in the original Treaty of Rome draft? All his fears on the Maastricht Treaty that he is now introducing to the Committee seem to me more applicable to what has been happening since 1956.
Lord Monson: I believe the noble Lord forgets that this is now to be the subject of majority voting. We shall not have the veto any longer. That is the point. As regards transport safety, the Committee will be aware that even before the treaty is ratified, a directive has been pushed through harmonising laws on seat-belts throughout the member states. That is extraordinary given that seat-belts are as much a matter for national parliaments as licensing laws or the permitted opening hours of theatres and cinemas. Every American and Australian state, and, as far as I know, every Canadian province, has its own different laws on seat-belts—
Lord Hacking: That is not true.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, interrupts from a sedentary position. He may be right about Canada, but he is certainly not right about the United States or Australia. It seems to me that we are rushing headlong not merely into a federal super state but, what is far worse, into a unitary super state. It makes a mockery of the principle of subsidiarity but now it is part of the acquis communautaire and it would be difficult to return this particular power to nation states.
Lord Clinton-Davis: This has been a strange debate, I must say. Under the guise of putting a number of questions, some of them germane and others not, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, sought to raise a whole variety of issues. It is not for me to reply to those specific points; that is for the Minister. However, t wish to make a few general points.
The value of the provisions in the Maastricht. Treaty dealing with the trans-European networks, although they trouble the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit., greatly, is that they give a real stimulus to the possibility of proceeding more rapidly with legislation in this field than has proved to be the case in the past. I had the honour to serve on the Commission. That went unnoticed as far as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. was concerned. I have always felt I was a household name, but only in my own household. The great value of the single market legislation, in which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, played so substantial a role, was not the aim generally to provide a moral fillip but rather that it created the possibility, through Article 100a, of making a substantial impact upon the legislative process which otherwise would not have been available. I believe the same applies in large measure to the provisions we are making here.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, talks about his inability to understand what a trans-European network is or his inability to obtain any information about it. I must say that in the transport sector people have been talking about trans-European networks for a long time. We were seeking to deal with those issues in a pretty unsatisfactory way through the period 1985 to 1987. Up to that time what had happened very largely—
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord is an ex-transport commissioner. I also wish to know what a trans-European network is. He, above all people, must know what it is. Will he please give a small and accurate description?
Lord Clinton-Davis: With the greatest respect, I am not sure what the purpose of that intervention was. I was just about to deal with the point. The noble Lord,Lord Tebbit, raised it and all the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has done is to reiterate the question, which takes up more time. I believe that a trans-European network is not capable of simple definition but it is something which enables a greater co-ordination of transport services within the Community to take place to the better advantage of the Community as a whole. For example, the Channel link is clearly a trans-European network because it facilitates transport between the United Kingdom, and indeed other peripheral areas, and the rest of the Continent. All that this provision does in any event is to help to achieve the objectives and to enable citizens of the Union, economic operators and regional and local communities to derive full benefit from the setting up of an area without internal frontiers. The Community shall contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructure.

547
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is entitled to mention the original treaty. There were transport articles inscribed in the original treaty which actually provided in part for qualified majority voting. However, the transport Ministers decided that they would not invoke that provision. That may have been because they felt that certain dangers attached to it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this is what they sought to do in the original treaty, but rather unsuccessfully.
I believe that it is fair to say that over the years transport Ministers seemed to hone inertia into a fine art. They achieved very little until they were taken to court by the European Parliament in the famous case against the Transport Council which enabled the court to adjudge that they had failed in their duty. I believe that from that time onwards considerable progress has been made in the transport sector which would not otherwise have been possible.
Here we are dealing with transport infrastructure matters, which are not dealt with specifically in the Treaty of Rome. For a very long time Ministers refused to recognise the importance of transport infrastructure. They preferred to see matters simply in national terms. I remember a Minister saying: "Why should we contribute to European Community transport infrastructure when we have enough on our plate? We have a lot of provision to make in our own country". I understand that point of view. However, if we are trying to build a Community and a single market we cannot do that without the transport wherewithal to carry goods and people across the Community, and for that one needs a transport infrastructure. That is the logic behind these provisions.
9 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that he will recollect that I am not wholly opposed to much of what he is saying. I hope that he will be able to tell me from his experience whether he believes that this treaty will, for example, prevent the German authorities from imposing charges on motorways which in effect bear only upon non-German road transport. He has given a nice loose definition of a trans-national network. Does an oil pipeline fall into that category?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not going to become involved in hypothetical situations. So far as concerns the noble Lord, I am seeking first to set the general pattern as to why it is important to give a fillip to these concepts. As regards the question of whether a specific German practice would or would not fall within this, one has to deal with the situation as it arises rather than consider hypothetical situations.
The noble Lord fails to take into account another important factor. Increasingly in the field of transport the Commission has not invoked the transport articles but has taken a deliberate decision to invoke competition articles in order to buttress its policies. I should have thought that the noble Lord would be in favour of that. Indeed, if German authorities, or
548
French authorities, decided to take anti-competitive action, unless the Ministers sitting in their Transport Council were prepared to come to the conclusion that those practices were to be insulated from the competition articles, the competition articles would apply. Increasingly that is the way in which conduct which is completely contrary to the philosophy of the Treaty of Rome needs to be prohibited and will be prohibited.
The interesting aspect of the competition articles is that they fall right across the philosophy of the noble Lord in that sense because they represent a Community policy. That is a Community policy which is designed to ensure that the best commercial practices are undertaken within the whole Community. What is more, it provides undertakings as well as governments with remedies which are not available elsewhere.
The noble Lord will, of course, disagree with my conclusions, but I happen to believe that what is invoked here will facilitate the desirable aim of being able to bring about these trans-European networks in the fields of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructure. That is not wholly new. That is what the Commission has been grappling with for many years, sometimes successfully and sometimes not.
It is worth saying in parenthesis that the Commission has had considerable success over the course of the past few weeks in persuading Ministers to make a great deal of progress in the field of cabotage, to which the noble Lord referred in respect of road haulage. They have successfully accomplished considerable putative reforms in the field of telecommunications. Achievements have been recorded over the past few days. Where the Commission has failed—and I recognise that I was part of that failure—was in its inability to persuade the Greeks to ensure that cabotage would apply to shipping. However, that is a matter which arises from the original Rome treaty, the Single European Act and all the rest of it. It is not new.
I believe that in those respects the Maastricht Treaty makes a contribution towards the enactment of policies which I believe will cause greater liberalisation or fairer competition to take effect governed by sensible regulations. One does need sensible regulation in a number of fields to which the noble Lord referred specifically, such as air traffic control.
I do not see that the Commission or the Community have any interest in making the Commission, for example, an air traffic regulatory body. Nor has the Commission such an interest. However, it has, and has always had, some interest in elements of safety. One cannot talk of liberalisation of air transport and not be concerned about safety. I used to take great offence when Ministers said that the Commission had no competence in that field and ought to stay outside their discussions, which were under EUROCONTROL. That is nonsense. I believe that the Commission has the ability to intervene in these matters in a largely advisory capacity. However, in some respects—again I do not propose to define them—it also ensures that regulation is enacted in that field.

549
I wish to say a few words about the environment. I am surprised that my noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to the planning provisions in the way that he did. If he looks carefully at Articles 130R to T of the Single European Act which were somewhat changed—they deal with the environment—he will see that the Council is required to act unanimously in a number of matters including measures concerning town and country planning. But of course the environmental impact assessment directive—I had the honour to be involved with that—was agreed unanimously by the 12 member states including the Government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. If they objected so much to the precepts that were set out, I wonder why they did not become more aggressive about undermining the directive before it became law. Why did they not take steps to amend it further? They chose not to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was a Member of that Government and must take full responsibility for the decision enabling that provision—I believe that it was a sensible provision—to become the law of the Community. By that law we are bound.
Lord Jay: Before the Minister replies, I wish to express the hope that she will answer one specific question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
First, he asked whether the issues of transport and communication networks, which we are undoubtedly discussing, came within the area of the subsidiarity article which distinguishes between issues which are within the exclusive competence of the Commission and those which are not. I do not propose to enter into the general argument on subsidiarity because I understand that we shall discuss it on Monday of next week. But since we are discussing transport, communications and so on, it is reasonable to ask into which of those two fields those issues fall.
Secondly, I make a comment arising out of some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He painted an inviting picture of the wonderful principles of competition impartially applied to all parts of the Community under the treaty. I am sure that he is sincere and has great knowledge of what is happening. However, I could not help recalling a somewhat different version of one incident, I think four years ago, concerning the Renault company in France.
My information comes from the Economist, which may be wrong, like many of us. However, its account was that Renault was suffering from a capital debt of something like £1 billion sterling and the French Government proposed to write off a large proportion of that debt. Some people considered that that amounted fairly obviously to a subsidy to the Renault company. Sir Leon Brittan, who was then the Commissioner for Competition, very rightly applied himself to the issue and put forward proposals for a considerable reduction in the extent of the debt which the French Government were entitled to write off. Then, according to the Economist, M. Rocard—noble Lords will recall that he was then the French Prime Minister—made a confidential approach to M. Delors, the President of the Commission. As a result of that, without knowledge of the unfortunate Sir
550
Leon Brittan, M. Delors presented a proposal at the next meeting of the Commission which gave a decision which was extremely generous to the Renault company and the French Government of which Sir Leon Brittan strongly disapproved.
That is the account given in the Economist newspaper. I can give the reference to my noble friend if he wishes. However, in this whole matter we should pay attention to realities as well as to the various expressions of good intentions which we find written in all the documents. I cannot assure the Committee with certainty that those are the true facts; but they have a ring of truth to me.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: It has been an interesting group of amendments led by Amendment No. 27 concerning Article 3(f). At least this group of amendments is shorter and therefore more focused However, that has not in any way reduced the number of questions being asked. Bearing in mind that we have four more groups to debate before 11 o'clock tonight, I shall be as brief and succinct as I can in replying.
Many of the points made—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether my noble friend will give way?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I have hardly begun.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I think that my noble friend is a little optimistic if she expects to finish by 11 o'clock when there was a Statement which lasted for an hour. The arrangement was that Statements would amount to overtime.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I believe that that is a matter for the proper channels, not for me. I shall take what advice I am given by the government Chief Whip. I should now like to try to answer some of the points that have been put in the debate.
I started to say, and I repeat, that many of the points which have been made in relation to the detailed amendments in the previous group—that is on industry, research, development and other chapters of the treaty—also apply to the amendments grouped under this heading. But not all action in the areas under discussion in this group should be seen as an innovation introduced by the Maastricht Treaty. I believe that that was made perfectly clear in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. In all cases, it was already possible under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, and certain action has already been undertaken.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, this group covers three topics: an amendment introduced at Maastricht to the transport chapter of the Treaty of Rome (replacing the old Article 75); the new chapter on trans-European networks, which I shall define in a moment (Articles 129b, 129c and 129d); and Article 3(t) which mentions the areas of energy, tourism and civil protection.
Let me begin with transport policy and Amendment No. 27, referring to Article 3(0 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and other

551
amendments which refer to sections of Article 75, as amended at Maastricht. This article is concerned with transport policy and introduces small changes to the Treaty of Rome, primarily to introduce the European Parliament's co-operation procedure (Article 189c), which we discussed earlier this week, to this sector, and to introduce the possibility of transport safety measures at a European level. Given the international nature of much of the transport field—to which I shall refer in a moment in answer to questions—it is natural that the Community should be involved in this area. Indeed, it has already been so for many years, as I well remember from when I served as Minister of State for transport in the Government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher.
We see considerable advantage in adopting measures which liberalise the Community's transport markets. Many such measures—included in the Commission's 1985 White Paper—are now agreed. UK transport businesses operate now in our own more liberal market and they are well placed to take advantage of the opportunities elsewhere in the Community.
I sincerely hope that Members of the Committee would not wish to block the considerable achievements of the single market in this important area. I accept that their amendments on this part of the Bill are probing amendments and therefore I suspect that they may not be pressed to a vote.
Now let me turn to the vexed question of what is a trans-European network, a matter which so bothered my noble friend Lord Tebbit. Trans-European networks are concerned with plugging gaps in infrastructure which could inhibit the efficient working of the single market. They include both physical projects, providing necessary transport links, and technical ones such as ensuring the inter-operability of the telecommunications systems. My noble friend Lord Tebbit asked me about mobile telephones. I can only say to him that every businessman I have ever spoken to about the inoperability between countries in Europe of the mobile telephones has said: "Please use the Community to get on and make sure that each can operate to the other". That is exactly what TEN is all about. It is one example among many, I tell my noble friend, which is there to help.
Lord Tebbit: My noble friend will recollect that that is a point which I made, that it would be welcome if we could establish such a thing. I have to say that most people in the industry are immensely mistrustful of whether the organisations of the Community would do it in a manner which is fair, or whether they would go off again on another barmy escapade like the high definition television one.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: If they go off on any barmy escapade, the thing to do is to make sure that the problem is taken up by the member states. I shall make an offer to my noble friend Lord Tebbit which I hope he will take up. I am advised that he will not take it up anyway, but let me make it in good faith. If he finds, as a director of British Telecom, things which
552
he thinks are going against the interests of the consumer in using telecommunications—and I particularly put it this way—then I hope he will tell me and other Ministers, so that we may take it up. We should be using the facility of the Maastricht Treaty and this Bill to do exactly that. I say that to my noble friend perfectly genuinely. I hope he will not interrupt me again. I am trying to get on with this Answer.
Having, I hope, put my noble friend's mind at rest a little, let me make one or two points about the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The provisions in Articles 129b to 129d are intended to provide the Community with the means to plug those gaps. But we already have the power in our Community under the Treaty of Rome to fund infrastructure projects through the provisions of the transport chapter and by the use of structural funds. But it is helpful, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, indicated, to clarify the purposes of such projects and the means by which they might be adopted.
Under the terms of the treaty, Community action must take place within a framework of open and competitive markets—that was the phraseology used by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and in the treaty—and must ensure that the networks are technologically compatible, and must take account (as was read out, again by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart) of the potential economic viability of any projects. That is all good, sound common sense. It is exactly what those who are involved in businesses, and indeed in government, seek to pursue. I see no reason for seeing ghosts in the wording of these articles, as some noble Lords have done.
In Amendment No. 157, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart and my noble friend Lord Tebbit seek to eliminate from the Bill the very clause on Council approval for measures to develop the trans-European networks. But Article 129d tries to tighten up the consultation procedures by requiring Council approval for all the proposals as well as consultation with other Community institutions. I believe that that is a welcome and sensible provision. I hope that it is indeed a probing amendment.
I was also asked about Article 3(t), which is the subject of Amendment No. 41. Unlike the other paragraphs of Article 3, 3(t) does not look forward to articles later in the treaty conferring substantial powers to deal with the matters specified. No such powers were inserted into the Treaty of Rome at Maastricht. Article 3(t) simply notes that these are fields in which the Community is also involved, and indeed was already involved. The declaration of the conference makes it clear that the specific provisions on these subjects will be considered in 1996. It is not a foregone conclusion that they will be agreed nor, if any are agreed, what they will be. But it concentrates our minds on a matter that we are already considering together in the normal course of our work in the European market.
If action relating to those fields covered by 3(t) is proposed, it will have to be taken under existing powers. Let me give the Committee an example. There is already a directive on package holidays adopted

553
under Article 100a of the Treaty of Rome. It is primarily a measure of consumer protection, but it also has relevance to tourism. That is now covered by the treaty, as the Bill covers the Maastricht Treaty.
There are a number of detailed questions that I want to try to answer briefly. I cannot add to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said about subsidiarny and exclusive competence in answer to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. We are to have a major debate on that point on Monday. I believe that I would be taking the Committee's time unnecessarily tonight if I were to delve into it. It would only give rise to: "What about this? What about that?", and we would go on for quite a long while to come.
In all these measures perhaps I may assure the Committee that in general the aim is to pump-prime, to conduct feasibility studies, to get things moving forward and to offer loan guarantees which will attract private sector finance. There may be one or two exceptional cases in which a given project is not evidently economically viable in the short term; otherwise the market would cope without any intervention. That is why the three words "take into account" were put into the Maastricht Treaty. I believe it to be an appropriate phrase.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit also asked about rules for member states to draw up requiring the approval of the member state concerned. That is very clearly stated in Article 129d. I do not believe that it should hold any of the anxieties to which my noble friend referred.
My noble friend went on to ask me a number of questions about telecommunications. I believe that there has been quite a notable success in the European Community in opening up the national monopolies—the PTTs as they are known—using Article 90. There is no doubt that many of the successes have been pushed by this country, and very wisely too. The first success was in the telecoms terminal equipment, and later the telecoms services were opened up, apart from voice telephoning. Now there is a further liberalisation package in train. Perhaps it would be useful to my noble friend if I were to arrange for him to have a note on the detail of that package from the Department of Trade and Industry.
My noble friend also asked me about telecoms standards under Article 129; that is the single market standard for telecoms under Article 100A. Whenever possible the Commission seeks mutual recognition of national standards, although in time a single standard may come. That is quite right.
My noble friend also asked me about cabotage and air liberalisation. I noted with interest his support for more Community powers and action to liberalise transport markets. I can tell him already that real progress has been made. There are three air liberalisation packages. Also, only last week the road haulage industry found it possible to have liberalisation in its work too. That is something that this country has long sought. I notice the support for further Community action and powers in such areas.
554
Nobody will go wild with such powers but they will seek to use them where it is in the interests of industry and the consumer to do so.
I noted that my noble friend was amused by the possibility of action against the French airlines. believe he said that there were plans to aid Air France illegally. Action was taken successfully just recently against the plans to recapitalise Air France. That is why I ask my noble friend and others like him to be a little more selective in the targets that they put up for target practice. There are some real villains, but if we mask the real villains by putting out a number of stories picked up from newspapers and other places, we have less chance of getting at them. I agree wholeheartedly with him in wanting to deal IA with real villains and I shall do my best to do so.
In regard to air traffic control, that can be covered if member states agree. They have the power to agree. But the Commission, for its part, is keen to improve the present situation in which national systems are incompatible and inefficient. Anybody who sits inside a plane at the end of a runway in any airport knows how much we long for better European air traffic control. Anything that we can do within the Community to bring that about will surely be welcomed by the passenger and the businessman.
The noble Lord asked about the Air Registration Board. I want to check its position. I have a thought in my head in that regard. However, I would not like him to have nightmares if I get it wrong and I wish him to sleep securely in his bed tonight. Therefore I shall write to him when I have checked the information.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about energy. I can assure him that the Maastricht Treaty does not introduce new specific provisions in the field of energy and there are no new powers which will gain control over North Sea oil. I hope that that answer will suffice.
I was asked also about seat-belts—a subject near to my heart. Frankly, I cannot see where else one can possibly put a seat-belt in a car. We have them in the front and in the back; we should use them, and by doing so this country has cut road accident casualties dramatically. I understand also that seat-belts, their fittings and the type of belt are matters that were agreed under the single market standards in Article 100A. Therefore, they do not need to be affected further.
It has been an interesting debate. There was an exchange between my noble friend Lord Tebbit and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, regarding lorry charges on German motorways. Without a Community it would not be possible to achieve an equitable conclusion, which we reached on the matter last week. I too am interested in the north Birmingham relief road. Perhaps I may point out that it is not the first toll road system to be introduced in this country because we have the Dartford Bridge. That is tolled privately, run privately and was built privately. I hope that the north Birmingham relief road will be as much of a success as the Dartford Bridge. l welcome the determination to fund it through private capital.
There are many more points one could raise in regard to the transport and telecommunications

555
network. But perhaps I may conclude by saying that I was glad to see that from the summit in Copenhagen this week a specific conclusion was reached which concerned an efficient network and communications infrastructure. I include two points only: first, making it easier and cheaper for people, goods and services to move around will increase the competitiveness of the European economy; secondly, an efficient infrastructure network will be of inestimable value for regional planning and economic and social cohesion.
I know that some of those words are not specifically to the Committee's liking. But the intention is right for the passenger and the British manufacturer. Having cleared the way just a week ago for the full liberalisation of the activities of road hauliers, which our road hauliers have earnestly wanted for many years, I believe that transportation, telecoms and energy—the topics covered by the amendments—are on the right track. I hope that the noble Lord will not press Amendment No. 27 to a vote. If he does so, I ask the Committee to resist it.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps my noble friend can help me. This is a genuine question and not a quest for knowledge. Our petrol is cheaper than French petrol; our diesel is more expensive than French diesel. I believe that there are similar differences in fuel prices in various other parts of the European Community. Will there be any directives or encouragement to equalise or harmonise the price of road fuel within the Community?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: As the price of road fuel is mainly affected by fiscal decisions, which are the decisions of the government of each member state, I cannot see that harmonisation is likely to advance one iota down that route.
Lord Monson: I did not think it fair to burden the noble Baroness with too many questions at once. However, she will be aware that Article 3(f), providing for a common policy in the sphere of transport, as well as that part of Article 75 relating to transport policy, could he used by other member states to argue that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland ought to be obliged to drive on the right-hand side of the road like the rest of the Community. Is it not the case that if a majority of member states were to take that view, if the treaty were ratified Britain would no longer have the power of veto?
The Minister did not reply to my query about the common rules applicable to international transport to and from or across the territory of other member states. That is quite understandable in view of all the other questions that she had to deal with. Is the Minister certain that the more protectionist members of the Community—we know which countries are by nature protectionist—will not use that to try to impede cheap flights from Britain to Australia, the Far East or North America? As she will be well aware, in Britain long distance air transport is cheaper than in any other Community country.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I do not believe there is any truth in whatever rumour the noble Lord may have heard about Britain being forced to drive on the right. I remember that point coming up in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 when I was in the Department of Transport. It was not true then, and it is not true now. We could not be forced to drive on the right.
So far as the noble Lord's other question is concerned, I shall look in detail at what he has said and write to him.
Lord Tebbit: Perhaps my noble friend will accept from me that what she has said about some of the measures that have been taken, not least through the Single European Act, towards the creation of a single market has my complete support. I should like to thank her and her colleagues for the work that they have done in that respect. After all, that was why I and my noble friend Lady Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, accepted that Britain would have to sacrifice some degree of control over its own affairs in order to achieve a single market. We believed that that would be a worthwhile exchange. Up to now, I have had considerable doubts about how that has worked out, but if we continue to make progress in forcing our protectionist continental partners to open their markets, I shall be delighted.
Finally, I should like to offer the consumers of Germany, France, Portugal and Spain one simple thing the ability to enjoy the same levels of price and quality in telephone services that we enjoy here. I know that the anti-British brigade do not like that. They must ask themselves why we have an open and competitive market and others will not allow our companies to compete with theirs.
I should also like to express my thanks to the Minister for what she said about the north Birmingham relief road. What she forgot to say was whether there were any powers by which the Community could interfere in that road design, construction or routing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. If she wishes to do so, I shall sit down.
Baroness Seear: I cannot imagine that she does.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is for the noble Baroness, not for the Liberal Benches, to answer. The Liberal Benches appear to think that this is all a great joke. I assure them that it is by no means a great joke. I am rather surprised that the Liberal Benches should be so reluctant to discuss this very important treaty.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may say—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, sought to show that we should not be discussing this treaty in detail. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and to the Committee that noble Lords have every right and duty to discuss the treaty in the detail that they wish. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other Members of the Committee, that one of the reasons that was given by the Prime Minister for not

557
having a referendum was that in his view the best place to discuss the treaty was Parliament. Your Lordships' House is still part of the British Parliament. It therefore has the right and duty to discuss matters involving all kinds of issues which are important to our country. I am only sorry that the Liberal Party should appear not to want to discuss them, and indeed should seek to prevent other people from discussing them. I hope that we shall have no more of that. Having said that—
Lord Tordoff: I thought that I had explained earlier that we have great difficulty in discussing the issues. I would be delighted to discuss the issues if we were actually discussing the amendments before us. But we are not discussing the amendments before us. We are having Second Reading speeches on the generality of the subject. It is extremely difficult for us to have specific discussions on the amendments before us. If we were going through the Maastricht Treaty line by line, that might he a good way of doing it. But we are not doing that. We are at the Committee stage of a Bill, and we are discussing 400 and heaven knows how many amendments. But apparently we are not discussing those amendments and the matter becomes very complicated.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord is perfectly well aware that for technical reasons we cannot discuss the treaty. If we could do that, and if we could put down amendments, then it would be very easy. But we cannot do that. We have to discuss the Bill, and to discuss the treaty we have to go through all kinds of procedures. The treaty should be discussed. I would hope that we are helping the Committee, not hindering it, by assisting it to discuss urgent and important matters.
I shall not go further into that and I shall not delay the Committee very much longer. We should be grateful to the Minister for all the information that she has given us and for replying to everything in detail. It was certainly not a Second Reading speech, if I may say so. It was a very good Committee speech which dealt in detail with all the matters that were raised by Members of the Committee. We are grateful for that—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon:—and because she has done so I need to raise only one further query. If the other members, by qualified majority, decide that we should drive on the right, I hope that she will use the Luxembourg Compromise which she has assured us is still in existence.
My fear about many of these provisions is that they will result in a mass of regulations coming from the Community—I hope that that will not be so—regulations which will injure our industry and may be built on by the home-grown band of officials. I do not ask the noble Baroness to reassure me at this stage, but I hope that that will not happen. We shall read her speech very carefully indeed. If we feel that further amendments are needed at Report stage, we shall, in spite of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, bring them forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(i)").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has asked me to move this amendment which stands in his name. It is grouped with Amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 147. The Committee will be pleased to know that I have made a precis of my speech so that it should be somewhat shorter than it was originally going to be.
After the monetary and fiscal policy aspects of the treaty, the most important part is that which affects social policy. Under the blanket of social policy are such issues as the maximum time, including overtime, that anyone may work in any given period; the minimum wage that any worker may receive; the length of paid and unpaid leave that must be granted to employees; the entitlement to maternity or paternity leave; unemployment benefit; sickness benefit; pension rights; trade union rights; and the role of industrial tribunals. That is a long enough list at this hour of the night, but it will give a flavour of what this part of the Bill is about.
I believe that we would all agree that employees require protection within the law from unscrupulous employers. We accept a proper balance between the rights in law of the employees and the employers. Whether or not we have it correct in the United Kingdom does not form part of this debate.
Hitherto, regulation of the conditions of employment in each member state has been a matter for national governments, with certain issues tempered by specific inter-governmental agreements. What we are now considering is whether that control over social policy, and all that that implies, should in future be vested in the institutions of the Community and not in national parliaments.
I consider that it should remain a national judgment as to how restrictive or generous conditions of employment should be at any one time. I believe that our colleagues in Europe are attempting to operate in isolation from the rest of the world. If the 12 nations traded entirely among themselves then it might not matter how few hours there were in the working week; how high a minimum wage was set or how generous social security benefits were. Those countries could all compete with each other on reasonably level terms.
However, the EC is but a part of Europe and an even smaller part of the world as a whole. By increasing labour costs and the costs of social security that has to be paid by taxpayers and by commercial companies alike, we would make ourselves and the rest of the Community uncompetitive with the trading nations outside the 12. We would lose overseas sales and even be buying from those countries in preference

559
to our own as their goods would be cheaper. That would result in much greater unemployment and a greater call on the social fund.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister negotiated an opt-out from the social chapter. That opt-out, in my view, is hardly worth the paper on which it is written. The other 11 states can impose the Community social policy on us under the articles which this group of amendments seeks to make unenforceable under United Kingdom law as well as other articles which deal with such matters as health and safety. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe that this is one of the most important matters in the Bill which we have to discuss. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has absolutely correctly identified unit labour costs and the social costs of employing labour. I do not think that it is only the European Community which will have to look at this question. Social security costs are rocketing out of control for perfectly good and right reasons. But the social security budgets of all Western countries such as the United States, ourselves and the Community, are in danger of taking such a large percentage of the wealth creation that damage is likely to be done.
The reason is more simple; we are all living longer. If we were to abolish the taxes on alcohol and tobacco, everybody would die by the age of 65 and the social security budget would come tumbling down, but I do not think that that is a serious proposition. This country has that problem, as has the rest of Europe. Let us remember that the French social security laws were introduced by Marshal Pétain and the Vichy government during the war to try to bribe the French for their defeat in the 1940s, but perhaps that is not totally germane to the argument.
We must encourage and give my right honourable friend the Prime Minister maximum support to keep social costs as low as possible. There is, of course, a difference between the social charge on unit labour costs and the take-home pay in somebody's pocket. In the case of the Hoover factory in Dijon or Lyons—it was one of those two Burgundy towns—the money in the workers' pockets was the same in the two towns concerned but the unit labour costs became so high in France that Hoover moved to Scotland.
German labour costs are so high at the moment that they are forcing German factories to set up in places like Czechoslovakia and Poland to take advantage of the much cheaper labour costs there. It is in nobody's interests that Germany should suffer social upheaval or not be as prosperous as possible. However, let us always remember that one can sell one's goods only to a rich society, not to a poor society. Therefore, it is in everybody's interests that the whole of Europe is as rich as possible and that people in other countries in Europe can spend as much money on our goods as we can spend on French or Italian goods.
If (for whatever reason) we put heavy taxes on labour costs—and there is a difference between unit labour costs and take-home pay—we shall be doing ourselves a major disservice. I hope that we can give
560
my right honourable friend the Prime Minister maximum support in keeping the social costs of the European Community as low as possible.
Lord Richard: Having listened to the two speeches supporting the amendments, I am bound to say that I found them utterly incomprehensible. If one looks at the amendment and at what it seeks to do—presumably, those who tabled the amendment knew what they were doing—one sees that it seeks to delete Article 3(i), which deals with,
"a policy in the social sphere comprising a European Social Fund".
This series of amendments relates to the European Social Fund, to how it operates and the purposes for which it was set up. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the social chapter and nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Prime Minister had a triumph or disaster when he negotiated the British opt-out. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the opt-out itself.
A number of amendments have been tabled for next week under which we can discuss the social chapter and the opt-out from it. Therefore, with great respect to the two noble Lords who have spoken, if the Committee wishes to discuss the European social fund we can do so next week. As a Commissioner who at one stage was responsible for it, I shall be delighted to participate in such a debate. However, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if at this stage I do not move my amendment on the social chapter which I think that we shall reach next Wednesday.
Lord Tebbit: I should like to direct my attention solely to one amendment, Amendment No. 36, which relates to Article 3(o) on page 9, which refers to the policies in relation to,
"a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection"—
Viscount Ullswater: I am sorry to have to interrupt my noble friend, but Amendment No. 36 is not grouped with the amendment that we are discussing.
Lord Tebbit: I am sorry. I am a debate ahead.
Viscount Ullswater: It now falls to me to answer in a few words a debate on a subject which has not been raised. I understand how my noble friend Lord Swinfen managed to make his speech because grouped with this is one on Article 118(a), and I think he squeezed into the group on that. I would have to say that I agree with him. We do not believe that the directive on working time was necessary or justified. I think my noble friend realises that we intend to challenge its health and safety legal base in the European Court, if and when it is adopted. We made it clear that the use of the health and safety legal base is completely unjustified for this objective, and is an abuse of the treaty.
Just very briefly, I would say to my noble friend Lord Onslow that of course I look forward to his support when we discuss the social protocol next Wednesday, but I would indicate to him that the chapter on social policy remains untouched in the treaty, which we believe to be quite right. However, I take his point about the social protocol and we shall

561
look forward to hearing what he has to say next week. In the meantime I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: May I apologise to the Committee for seizing the wrong end of the stick with my normal and customary vigour? The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was completely correct in bringing me to a halt and I apologise.
Lord Swinfen: know that the social chapter will be discussed next week, but the social policy is a hook upon which so many other things can be hung by the Commission that could well put up costs of our business and raise the costs of social security in this country that I thought it was worth raising. I still think it was worth raising, but as the hour is late and there seems to be some concern as to whether we might finish by 11 o'clock or shortly afterwards, I will beg the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 1. line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(k)")
The noble Lord said: I have been asked to introduce this group of amendments dealing with health and the environment, beginning with Amendment No. 32 and including Amendments Nos. 36, 151 and 179–183. As the hour is late, I shall he as brief as is possible. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will judge that what I say is relevant and that I am speaking about the right subject.
I doubt whether many people in this country appreciate the remarkable scope of the Maastricht Treaty. In our discussions this week some noble Lords have portrayed it as a mere tidying-up exercise to improve the working of the single market. The Government have suggested that it is actually a decentralising measure, which it manifestly is not. As I suggested at Second Reading, it in fact marks a massive transfer of power from national governments to Brussels.
One of those areas of policy which fall under the control of Brussels under the terms of the treaty is health, and another is the environment. The amendments we are discussing cover the appropriate articles in the treaty. These amendments seek to exclude those provisions in the treaty from being applicable and enforceable in Britain. Your Lordships will by now be becoming familiar with Article 3 of the treaty and the many activities listed under that article, which are now to fall within the competence of Brussels.
Article 3(k) lists as being within the competence of Brussels a policy in the sphere of the environment. Article 3(o) exhorts the Community to make a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection. Article 129 covers public health and Articles 130(r), 130(s) and 130(t) cover the environment. I think it is important that we remind ourselves that in this Bill we are not dealing with international agreements on specific issues such as health and the environment. If we were, I suspect that most of us
562
would agree that countries, not just in Europe but all over the world, should co-operate in encouraging good public health and preventing the spread of disease. Indeed, they already do just that.
What we are dealing with here, however, is a treaty which, through this Bill, is to carry the force of law within Britain. What is at issue, therefore, is whether matters such as co-operation on health protection between the 12 member states, research into diseases, health information and education, co-ordination of each country's health policies and programmes, co-operation with countries outside the Twelve and co-operation with international health organisations should essentially be covered, the policies decided, and the funds made available, not by the British Government and the British Parliament, but as a matter of law by the Commission and the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
Public health should surely remain the responsibility of national governments. In so far as it can and should be promoted internationally—for example, measures to reduce drug dependency—surely that must be done by voluntary agreement between governments. What seems to me to be undesirable is a supra-government imposing their view by majority voting as regards public health and public health policies on those countries which prefer to do what is proposed in a different manner or not do it at all. Yet that, I understand, is what is proposed in the treaty.
Similar arguments apply to the environment. Under the Maastricht Treaty policies for the environment will be decided by qualified majority vote in the Council of Ministers. Article 130r proposes that the Community, acting as the Community, shall preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment. It proposes the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources. It proposes measures at international level to those ends. That all sounds very sensible. However, by paragraph 3 of the same article the Community shall also take account of environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community, the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action, the economic and social development of the Community as a whole, and the balanced development of its regions.
The article is, I think, of some significance. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Commission in Brussels will be able to rebuke the wealthier nations of the Community for policies of which it disapproves while condoning and even encouraging the same policies in the poorer countries. What may be thought by the Commission to be the prudent arid rational use of resources in one country could be condemned as wasteful if pursued by another. The words in paragraph 3 of the article allow, I suggest, for a prejudiced application of environmental policy from Brussels.
Again, Article 130s gives power to the Commission to propose and for the Council to confirm measures concerning town and country planning. May I ask the Minister whether it is correct that the article permits Brussels to introduce measures which override and replace United Kingdom planning law? Will such measures have to be taken into account in any

563
planning application once the Maastricht Treaty is ratified and this Bill becomes an Act? Will major planning inquiries have to go to Brussels after or before going to the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Under the present terms of the Treaty of Rome the Prime Minister has said that planning applications and planning inquiries, even for major projects, remain the responsibility of the British Government. As Members of the Committee will recall, the Prime Minister reprimanded the then Environment Commissioner in Brussels when he sought to intervene on the M.3 extension. However, under these articles of Maastricht, Brussels could, it seems to me, overrule the Department of the Environment on any future planning proposals similar to the M.3 extension, the line of route for a Thames crossing, or even a simple application for gravel extraction. I ask the Minister how those extensive powers as regards the environment given to Brussels under the Maastricht Treaty square with the Prime Minister's promise of non interference in British planning law.
I give Members of the Committee one further example. Paragraph 2 of Article 130r makes the assertion that the polluter should pay. I am sure that that is right: we all agree. However, paragraph 5 of Article 130s states:
"Without prejudice to the principle that the polluter should pay, if a measure based on the provisions of paragraph 1 involves costs deemed disproportionate for the public authorities of a Member State, the Council shall, in the act adopting that measure, lay down appropriate provisions in the form of: temporary derogations and/or financial support from the Cohesion Fund".
That seems to me to mean that the polluter should pay but that Brussels can suspend the rule if the country in question cannot afford to pay and that Brussels will see to it that in such circumstances the cohesion fund pays the costs.
In practice that would mean that if two identical plants using identical technology, both perhaps 20 years old, were producing what is now considered to be unacceptable effluent, the one in the north European country would have to clean it up at its own expense, whereas the one in the Mediterranean would either have to clean it up at the expense of European taxpayers or would not have to clean it up at all. The result could well be that the one in the north closes down because cleaning up is too expensive whereas the one in the south keeps going and takes the other plant's business. Those articles in the Maastricht Treaty seem to me to permit just that. Surely that must be wrong. I hope that the Minister can tell us what is the Government's view.
I believe that about 1.2 billion ecus were earmarked for environmental projects in 1989–93, many of them channelled through the European regional development fund and the European Investment Bank. Some of that money is well spent but some of the Community's regional projects do a great deal of damage. I give one example. There is the current European Community engineering project in the Missolonghi marshes of Greece where Byron died, which is widely considered to be a scandalous
564
devastation of one of the finest wetland and wildlife sanctuaries in Europe. That is all paid for by Community funds, to which we contribute. Should we not press for far better environmental monitoring of such projects? I beg to move.
Lord Tebbit: I wonder whether I could be advised by my noble friend Lady Chalker as to whether the provisions which are the subject of Amendment No. 36—that is, Article 3(o), which refers to a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection —is the provision under which the 48-hour week was forced upon us?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend. It is not a matter that I wish to raise in relation to the health of workers in industry generally. I shall await a further opportunity to speak on that matter.
Lord Monson: My noble friend Lord Moran introduced this group of amendments so well that there is not a great deal for me to ask the Minister. However, I should like to home in upon the question of co-operation on health protection.
The various matters covered by these amendments—the co-operation on health protection between the 12 member states, research into disease, co-operation with countries outside the Twelve and co-operation with international health organisations—are all extremely desirable. However, that kind of cooperation takes place at present between this country and the other member states and between Britain and the United States, Canada and Australia on an ad hoc basis. It works perfectly well.
Why do we need a formal institutional framework? What can the Community as a body do better than is being done at present? Health information and education, I should have thought, were the province of national parliaments. As for the co-ordination of each country's health policies and programmes, I find that sinister and insulting. It is sinister because, if the Community were enlarged, for example, by the addition of the Nordic states with their rather puritanical approach to certain matters, they might persuade enough countries that alcohol is dangerous and enforce much higher taxes upon alcoholic drink throughout the Community on the basis that that was co-ordinating each country's approach to health in relation to diseases resulting from the overconsumption of alcohol. Surely that is a matter for national states.
I say insulting, because it implies that national parliaments are composed of lazy and inefficient people who are incapable of protecting the citizens of their own countries. This matter is first and foremost one for national parliaments. It is no business of the Community as a whole.
On the issue of the environment, I realise of course that matters such as the M.3 extension, the objections to the Thames crossing and so on have nothing strictly to do with the Maastricht Treaty. Will the Minister assure me that she and the Government find such interference wholly objectionable and that they will continue to resist it as strongly as they can?
Baroness Hooper: I too should like to make a few remarks about Amendment No. 151. As a Minister in the Department of Health with responsibility for international matters, 1 represented the department at meetings of the Council of Health Ministers. In the early 1980s, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, we complained that health Ministers never met. By the early 1990s, however, the health Ministers were meeting regularly. They had at least two formal meetings a year and some additional informal meetings. That was without any specific mention of health in the treaties, apart, of course, from health and safety at work. It was not the ad hoc arrangement that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggests.
It seems to me that health, like the environment, knows no frontiers. A great deal of useful collaborative work has already taken place on the basis of intergovernmental co-operation such as, for example, the Europe against Cancer Campaign which has been referred to. European Community research policy covers the health field. Our pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries are active in the internal market. Above all, our doctors, nurses and health care professionals enjoy freedom of establishment enabling them to work in any Community country. So we already have European Community policies affecting health issues in this country, but there were no parameters to those policies. Due to that, there were worries and the usual scare stories such as, for example, the suggestion that Europe wanted to interfere with our NHS. Something about which I am sure all Members of the Committee could agree is that a national health service should strictly be a national task.
When I asked my fellow health Ministers from Spain, France, the Netherlands and so on about their jobs, I discovered that the vast majority were public health ministers who were in no way involved in running a health service. They were interested only in public health issues. I therefore actively supported the definition of health policy so as to spell it out. I am, in part, responsible for the drafting of Article 129 which, I feel, separates clearly matters with which the European Community could, should and can deal in relation to health policy from those matters which should be dealt with on a national basis.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I consider that this clarification is eminently desirable. It is certainly far from being the sinister introduction of a new policy that was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It seems to me that it provides a good example of crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. I would be extremely aggrieved if anyone supported Amendment No. 151.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: One of the great achievements of the Single European Act—it may look a small item but it was very important—was that environmental protection was brought in under Article 130r. It was significant that it was decided in the Single European Act that when laying down rules for the new internal market, environmental protection
566
should be given a high priority. I believe that a large number of people in this country were extremely happy that environmental protection should be given such a high profile. It is obvious that much of the pollution in the Community crosses frontiers, be it by air, water or land. There is no way in which that kind of pollution can be dealt with other than on a Community basis. It seems to me that to delete paragraph (k) from Article 3 of the draft treaty would be an unfortunate and indeed a disastrous step as regards the protection of the environment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was surprised to see this group of amendments on the Marshalled List. I was staggered to hear the noble Lord, Lord Moran, speak to them. The noble Lord is distinguished for his contribution to environmental debates in this Chamber. He played a valuable part in the Environmental Protection Act and he has played a valuable part in the debates on the reports of the European Communities Committee and indeed in the work of the committees of this Chamber. He has played a valuable part in all of our debates on the environment. It is difficult to believe that anyone of his distinction who holds his views could seriously propose that we should take out of our agreement to the treaties Articles 129 and 130r, s and t. I can only repeat that I am staggered by that.
Articles 3(k) and 3(o) are, of course, the paving articles. The meat of this group of amendments is in Title X in the first instance on public health and then in Title XVI on the environment. The Committee should know what Titles X and XVI state. Article 129 states that the Community,
"shall contribute towards ensuring a high level of human health protection by encouraging co-operation between the Member States and, if necessary, lending support to their action. Community action shall be directed towards the prevention of diseases, in particular the major health scourges, including drug dependence, by promoting research into their causes and their transmission, as well as health information and education. Health protection requirements shall form a constituent part of the Community's other policies".
There is no intervention by the Council, the Commission or the Parliament into this country's policies. What is being said here is that disease does not respect boundaries. What is being said here is that there is a role for international action in public health. Any Member of the Committee who gives a moment's thought to that must recognise that that is the case. It is not even as if the Commission were going to take over control of international action on public health. Paragraph 2 of article 129 states:
"Member states shall, in liaison with the Commission, co-ordinate among themselves their policies and programmes in the areas referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission may, in close contact with the Member States, take any useful initiative to promote such co-ordination".
That is not a case of handing over to Brussels those matters which should be the proper concern of this country. I would have thought this is the very minimum of co-ordination between member states and the minimum in terms of the back-up role of the Commission when it is asked to become involved.
Paragraph 3 states that:

567
"The Community and Member States shall foster co-operation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of public health".
Is the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggesting that the European Community should not foster co-operation with third countries and with competent international organisations? It beggars belief that we should rely on national frontiers in order to take part in international action in support of public health.
Finally, in paragraph 4, the article states:
"the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to … after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt incentive measures, excluding any harmonization of the laws and regulations of the Member States".
One cannot go further in avoiding interference with our national rights than is provided for in that article, which goes on to say:
"acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations".
I have not heard any serious suggestion from any supporter of this group of amendments that Article 129 interferes with our national sovereignty. I should have thought that this is a clear example of the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty as additions to the other treaties being all gain and no loss.
Then we come to a point which I should have thought ought to have concerned the noble Lord, Lord Moran, even more closely, namely Title XVI on the environment—Articles 130r, 130s and 130t. The Committee will be relieved to know that I do not wish to read those in the same detail as I read the article on public health because the principle is the same.
On every issue about which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and I have been concerned and have been on the same side, for example, such as that reported in today's newspapers relating to the quality of water at bathing beaches, who has taken the initiative? Who has taken the initiative in seeing that the quality of water at bathing beaches is satisfactory? It may be thought a trivial matter, but I do not believe that it is, and it is a good example. It is not the British Government who have taken the initiative. The British Government put up blue flags, which mean that there are adequate toilet facilities. The European Community has taken proper steps to ensure that water quality is adequately controlled. Those who read this morning's newspapers will see that the British Government and the National Rivers Authority have not done too badly. We have improved the quality of our bathing beaches. However, the initiative has been taken by the European Community, entirely properly, on the basis of directions.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Lord not agree that if the British people had felt so strongly about their bathing beaches, they only had to vote into power a government who promised to do something about it? The fact that they chose not to do so indicates that they had more important matters on their minds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The British people, in their wisdom—which I respect perhaps rather more than the noble Lord, Lord Monson—have voted into power a series of governments, Labour and
568
Conservative, all of whom have taken the entirely rational and sensible view that there are issues of public health and the environment which are better dealt with at a European level than at a national level. That is the basis on which we on these Benches support Title XVI as we supported the title on public health.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: Does the noble Lord believe that the people of this country might regret that decision when they find their water bills coming in for the new super water we are going to have?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: A few years ago I spent many hours on the Water Bill which dealt with the privatisation of water. One of the points on which there was full agreement, not merely between the Front Benches but among all those who took an interest in the quality as well as the cost of our water—because of course there is a trade-off between quality and cost—was that there needed to be an improvement in the quality of water for health and aesthetic reasons. That is recognised by the water industry. It is recognised by the Government. It is recognised by the National Rivers Authority, and it is recognised by the Office of Water Services. Although in my view this country took a wrong decision to privatise water, the one factor that was right about that decision was that we recognised the value of the European contribution.
A number of noble Lords on the Government Front Bench at that time used to spit—metaphorically of course—every time the name of Signor Carlo Ripa di Meana was mentioned. As did the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, they believed that he was going too far in proposing higher standards of water purity both for drinking water and for other purposes. I believe that that argument has passed. Everyone now recognises that it is in the interests of all of us to have higher water quality. Those who opposed the proposals from the European Commission at that time now recognise, as do the water industries and most people in this country, that the proposals were right.
I promise noble Lords that I shall not spend the 20 or 25 minutes that I could in rehearsing the many aspects of environmental policy which require European action. Action in order to preserve biodiversity does not pay regard to frontiers. Action to preserve wildlife and the marine ecology does not pay any attention to national frontiers. Those are European issues. Articles 130r, s and t provide that on the initiative of member states there should be European action. The lesson of the past 10 years has been that those European actions have been of enormous value, not simply in the way in which they prompted the British Government to take action but in the way in which they prompted governments of other member states to take action. The idea that any of us who have taken part in environmental debates in this country should wish to support the amendments is beyond belief.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It seems to me that some Members of the Committee may have fallen for a somewhat simplistic argument which runs, as far as

569
the environment is concerned, roughly like this. The environment is a good thing. Maastricht covers the environment. Therefore Maastricht, or this part of it, must be a good thing. A better environment, of course, is a good thing in so far as it can and should be politically and administratively promoted on a national scale. The question is: how much should be done by national governments and how much should be done by the Community?
Article 130r proposes that the Community, acting as the Community, shall,
"preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment".
That is a fine ideal. It proposes,
"prudent and rational utilization of natural resources".
I am sure that we all agree with that. It proposes measures at international levels to meet these ends, however.
By paragraph 3 in the same article, the Community shall also take account of,
"environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community; the potential benefits and costs of action or of lack of action; the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions".
That article needs fairly careful reading, I submit. Would my noble friend agree that through those two paragraphs the Commission in Brussels will be able to slap the wrists of the wealthier nations of the Community for a certain policy while condoning and even encouraging the very same policy in the poorer countries?
What will be deemed by the Commission to be prudent and rational use of resources in one country can be condemned as wasteful if pursued by another. It seems to me that the somewhat weasel words in paragraph 3 of that article allow for an extremely prejudiced application of an environmental policy from Brussels.
Article 130s gives power to the Commission to propose, and for the Council to confirm, measures concerning town and country planning. Would the Minister care to confirm that this clause permits Brussels to introduce measures which override and replace UK planning law? Will such measures have to be taken into account in any planning applications once Maastricht is ratified and if this Bill becomes an Act? Will major planning inquiries have to go to Brussels after or before going to the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Under the present terms of the Treaty of Rome, before Maastricht is ratified, the Prime Minister has rightly said that planning applications and planning inquiries, even for very major projects, remain the responsibility of the British Government. Indeed, the Prime Minister rightly reprimanded the environment commissioner in Brussels when he sought to intervene on the M.3 extension. However, under these articles of the Union treaty, Brussels could overrule the Department of the Environment on any future planning proposals similar to the M.3 extension, or the line of route for a Thames crossing or even for a simple application for gravel extraction. How do these extensive powers over the environment, given to
570
Brussels under the Maastricht Treaty, square with the Government's promise of non-interference in British planning laws?
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Elles: Will my noble friend give way? I am grateful. I wonder whether he has carefully read Article 130s. Paragraph 2 says that it will be the Council,
"acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament"
which deals with measures concerning town and country planning. That means that the United Kingdom reserves the veto on the issue and that no town and country planning can be authorised by Brussels or any other body without the consent of the British Government.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Those of us who are watching the process of the Luxembourg compromise and the qualified majority vote—
Baroness Elles: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene again, this has nothing to do with the Luxembourg compromise. It is a unanimous vote by members of the Council of Ministers. That includes the United Kingdom.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Of course I accept that technically the British Government could go to the Council and veto a series of these proposals. I point out, however, that in the general drift of the treaty, particularly in Article J in the protocol, we have signed an agreement that we will not withhold our consent from a unanimous vote when a qualified majority vote. exists. I appreciate the point my noble friend makes and I accept it, but I think that she must also accept that the pressure is more and more not to go along with a unanimous vote when a qualified majority vote exists. I think we see that problem at the moment with some of the directives coming from Brussels which the Government rightly resist. I quote, for example, the 48-hour week, young people at work and others. So the general drift of the way it is going enables me to ask these questions.
I confirm that these are extensive powers over the environment, given to Brussels under the Maastricht Treaty. I wonder how they square with our Government's promise of non-interference in British planning law. I feel that it would be difficult to resist when it comes our way in this area, as it is already difficult to resist in the other areas I have mentioned.
There is much more that I could pursue under this little known part of the Maastricht Treaty, but let me be content with one further example. Article 130r, paragraph 2, makes the assertion that the polluter should pay. However, paragraph 5 of Article 130s states:
"Without prejudice to the principle that the polluter should pay, if a measure based on the provisions of paragraph I involves costs deemed disproportionate for the public authorities of a Member State, the Council shall, in the act adopting that measure, lay down appropriate provisions in the form of … temporary derogations and/or … financial support from the Cohesion Fund".

571
What that means is that the polluter should pay but that Brussels will suspend the rule if the country in question cannot afford to pay.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It means no such thing. It means that if the polluter should pay principle is carried to extreme—and Members of the Committee on the Government Front Bench know exactly what I mean by that—then there will be other provisions. Either the enactments will not be enforced immediately, in other words there will be temporary derogations, or—if we want to put it in the pejorative terms that Members of the Committee seem to like—Brussels will provide financial support from the cohesion fund. It does not mean that the polluter will pay at all.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord is agreeing with me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I am not.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may quote again from the article:
"Without prejudice to the principle that the polluter should pay, if a measure based on the provisions of paragraph I involves costs deemed disproportionate for the public authorities of a Member State"—
who deems that disproportionate or otherwise?—
"the Council shall, in the act adopting that measure, lay down appropriate provisions in the form of:
—temporary derogations and/or
—financial support from the Cohesion Fund".
The noble Lord may feel that that smacks of even-handedness across the Community; but the way I read it, it does not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord does not have shares in ICI or Shell. The large chemical companies, in particular in this country, have taken great exception to these provisions in the treaties. The provisions have to be Europe-wide because the damage which is caused by pollution in the Rhine does not only affect Germany; it affects Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and the North Sea, and therefore affects us. Major chemical companies have always objected to the idea of European legislation. They know that European legislation in this area is likely to be effective. What these provisions ensure is that action will be taken, and that if necessary there will be European funds to ensure that that action is taken.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The point I am making is that it is a question of how fair the European action will be. Indeed, the noble Lord makes the very next point that I had intended to make. In practice, if there were two identical plants using identical technology, both, let us say, 20 years old, producing what is now considered to be unacceptable effluent, the one in the north European country would perhaps have to clean it up at its own expense, whereas the one in the Mediterranean would either have to clean it up at European taxpayers' expense, or not have to clean it up at all. That is what I mean, and that fits very well with what the noble Lord said. The result could well be that the one in the north closes down because it is
572
too expensive to clean the effluent up, whereas the one in the south would keep going and keep the other one's business.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am not quite sure whether he is giving a hypothetical case, or a real case. If it is a real case, I would be extremely grateful if he will make it clear where the two plants are.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am not giving a real case. I am posing a hypothetical case of what could happen under the articles of this treaty in future. I think the point I have made is perfectly clear. It may well be that British chemical companies object to these articles for precisely those reasons. I would have thought that the Maastricht Treaty permits just that. I shall be very interested in my noble friend the Minister's reply to the points that I have made.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: This has been an interesting and varied short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for moving the amendment. I should like to begin by addressing the public health issues covered by the new chapter, Article 129, which was agreed at Maastricht. I say to my noble friend Baroness Hooper that I for one am extremely grateful for the work that she put in to achieve a sensible contribution on public health by the Community as a whole.
Article 129 provides a sound legal basis for Community action—that is why I hope that no one will be tempted to follow Amendment No. 151 which is before us. It does so by giving us legitimate areas for Community action in the field. The chapter gives the Community a role in disease prevention through the encouragement and promotion of research, information and education, but not in the provision of healthcare. That reflects the fact that disease prevention has a clear trans-national element—that is, information on epidemics and health techniques—while healthcare provision is local and it is for each state to decide upon its own appropriate systems of administration and finance. It is that limitation on the extent of Community action that reflects the whole principle of subsidiarity, as does the specific exclusion in Article 129.4 of any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of member states. Thus the chapter provides the basis for the Community to support member states in the area of public health, which is clearly beneficial to both our country and other member states.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, had the idea that there was some supragovernment imposition of health measures. I hope that what I have just said reassures him that there is no malign plan of some Eurocracy to impose wicked plans on the unwilling and impotent national Ministers. I can assure him that the Ministers are neither impotent nor unwilling. What Maastricht does is limit the scope. That is why I say that the Commission must encourage co-operation between member states and lend support to their actions if necessary and the Community's health policies will continue to be directed toward prevention. In no way will there be scope for Community involvement in the

573
treatment or delivery of services. The noble Lord will find that set out most clearly in the agreement on public health made at Maastricht.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that there was no point in a multilateral approach on health. Yet I feel. from what my noble friend Lady Hooper said, that there are many areas in which it makes sense to pool ideas and develop common approaches. Duplication is a very expensive luxury which I suggest no country in the Community or outside it can afford. In theory it would be possible through a series of bilateral agreements to have a similar approach; but frankly to have that number of bilateral agreements in order to achieve the same end seems to me to be very wasteful of civil servants' time.
Let me turn to Amendment No. 32, concerning Article 3(k), and Amendments Nos. 179 to 183, concerning Articles 130r and 130t. Environmental policy has become an essential part of Community action, since the environment title was put into the treaty by Article 25 of the Single European Act. I must say that the environment seems to me to be a prime example of where limited Community action makes sense. We well know that the environmental problems are no respecters of international boundaries. I might also say that there is a high degree of public support for Community action on the environment. That has always been notable, I believe, in postbags of Members in another place and even perhaps in your Lordships' postbags, too.
Article 130r, which is covered by Amendment No. 179, illustrates how Maastricht maintains the existing objectives of Community environmental policy: preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment; protecting human health; prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources. But it adds a new one: promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems. That recognises the significant contribution that the Community now makes to global environmental issues—as, for example, at last summer's conference in Rio.
The Community environmental policy hitherto has been based on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay.
Maastricht builds on those principles, providing for,
"sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment",
(Article 2) and ensuring that the principle of a high level of protection of the environment is extended from internal market measures to environmental policy generally.
Maastricht has added the "precautionary principle" identified in the second paragraph of Article 130r. That will ensure that measures may be taken to avert a potential environmental threat even though there may be some uncertainty concerning the nature of the threat or its effects. The inclusion of that principle means that there has been a shift of emphasis from whether action should be taken, to considerations of which measures should be taken and when, in order to give protection to the environment. I found it of
574
particular concern during our presidency in the second half of last year, to promote the idea of the integration of environmental interests into other areas of Community policy. That followed on some hard negotiation in Rio and in the many months leading up to it. Here was the Community getting together to do something positive in relation to protecting our environment. So Maastricht reinforces the existing commitment under the Single European Act so that environmental protection requirements will no longer simply be a component of other Community policies, but must now be integrated into the definition arid implementation of other Community policies.
That may from time to time involve some difficult decisions. I can assure the Committee that the environment frequently does in whatever part of government and international business one works. But we must properly balance economic needs with environmental ones. The treaty is, indeed, a good step forward.
In relation to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in regard to northern plants closing while Mediterranean plants thrive, the whole question became a subject of some debate between the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend. The treaty explicitly states that the provisions are without prejudice to the polluter pays principle. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right. No poorer state should think that they are going to get away with an environmental free ride. The Council decides whether to grant a derogation; and the member state requesting it, if it is trying to get out of its responsibilities to curb pollution, can be out-voted by qualified majority voting.
But the point that must be combined with that is that we have also the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 3b which covers the whole of the Treaty of Rome. That therefore gives us a tougher form of words, making clear that the assumption is not that Community action is possible, but that where Community action is desirable, then member states will go for that.
If one reads the articles carefully and thinks about the way in which they have been drawn up, it becomes quite clear that the whole of the third paragraph of Article 130r is carried out in a way which makes sense for all countries of the Community.
We had a number of comments in regard to town and country planning and the fact that the Community might overrule planning inquiries in this country. My noble friend Lady Elles was right when she talked about the wording in the second paragraph of Article 130s. The scope of possible EC action on the environment has not changed, in substance, to what we agreed in the Single European Act. The reference to planning is an exception to the general qualified majority vote rule for that area which we agreed at Maastricht. That was clone at our insistence and the insistence of others so that fiscal measures and those affecting planning and energy still require unanimity.
Action affecting planning was always possible under the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. It was taken under the environmental assessment

575
directive. The Commission's interpretation of that directive has been intrusive. Tonight reference has been made to Twyford Down. That was contrary to the subsidiarity provision. The previous weak formulation of subsidiarity in Article 130(r)4, which was in the single Act, has been deleted. In future the strong form in Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty will apply. Surely this is an area where rigorous application of the principle is needed. That was why we fought so long to ensure that we got Article 3b in the form in which we needed to use it.
There are many other aspects on environment. There is a need to ensure that our attempt sensibly to balance environmental considerations with the considerations of our single internal market is correctly formulated. I cannot see in Amendment No. 32 or any of the other amendments in this group that we would aid what we have been trying to do one iota. Indeed, I believe that it will set it back by a very long distance. What we are doing in public health is right. It puts into the Community treaty the only parts of public health that should be there. What we seek to do is to make sure that everybody is conscious of and plays their part in safeguarding our fragile environment. If Amendment No. 32 is pressed to a vote I ask your Lordships to reject it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with every word uttered by the Minister; but why have I spent the past five years or more trying to persuade the Government of the self-evident truths that she has expressed?
Lord Monson: In the light of the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, explaining that town and country planning has never been and will not be subject to qualified majority voting, can the Minister confirm that Signor Ripa di Meana was totally out of order in trying to interfere in the M.3 extension, the Thames River crossing and similar projects which obviously came under the heading of town and country planning?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Signor Ripa di Meana is no longer an EC Commissioner. He was certainly shown to have intervened too far in what I referred to as the Twyford Down case. But I believe that the environment is very precious. We must consciously look at the plans we make in this country against the EC criteria, which are no different from our own. Whether it be the previous Commissioner or any Commissioner, I do not believe that the principle should change. We should all care for the environment. I hope that that is what we shall be doing under the Maastricht Treaty when it is ratified.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: To set the record straight, Signor Ripa di Meana was acting in accordance with a directive that this country had agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hesitate to intervene. I have not intervened in the debates up until now. I was somewhat involved in the Department of Transport in the Twyford Down saga for a number of years. I shall
576
attempt to set the record straight. The argument was mainly about timing and whether we had completed our planning processes before the directive came into force. We won that argument on Twyford Down. I very much hope that, as a result of Maastricht, subsidiarity will now come into force and we will achieve what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said; namely, that questions on bypasses and matters of that kind should come back to national governments and Secretaries of State for the Environment.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My noble friend is absolutely right. The matter was one of timing. However, it seems to me to be absolutely right that where we have a national road—a bypass—it is a matter for the national government. Therefore, whatever the timing, I believe it is a matter where the Commission should not interfere. We have Article 3(b) in the Maastricht Treaty and applying that to such matters as a by-pass or a national road which is plainly a national road going from one point in the United Kingdom to another point in the United Kingdom are matters for the United Kingdom Government.
Lord Moran: I thank the Minister for her reply which, as ever, has been extremely helpful and courteous. She has given me a measure of reassurance. I hope that on the general question she is right. But it is certainly the case that all is not always for the best in all possible worlds. The one example that I gave of what has gone wrong in Greece, where a Community development is going on with almost catastrophic results on the environment, is an example of how the machinery sometimes goes wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed some surprise at the views that I was putting forward. Both of us share a real concern for the environment and he himself has done tremendous work in this House on environmental questions. The issue that I was concerned about was where the responsibility should lie and to what extent it should lie with national governments and to what extent they should be overridden by the Commission and the machinery in Brussels. I think that in the fields both of health and of the environment the question of subsidiarity is extremely important. Having said that, I hope that the Minister is right and that things will develop on sensible lines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Dawat-e-Hadiyah (England) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.

Pwllheli Harbour (Amendment) Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  NUCLEAR MISSILES: POLICY
  NUCLEAR MISSILES: POLICY
  NUCLEAR TESTS: NEVADA
  NUCLEAR TESTS: NEVADA
  N.M. ROTHSCHILD: FEES
  N.M. ROTHSCHILD: FEES
  PUBLIC BODIES: APPOINTEES' ARRANGEMENTS
  PUBLIC BODIES: APPOINTEES' ARRANGEMENTS
  PUBLIC BODIES: ACCOUNTABILITY
  PUBLIC BODIES: ACCOUNTABILITY
  TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT APPLICATIONS: INFORMATION
  TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT APPLICATIONS: INFORMATION
  FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT: REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
  FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT: REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
  TAXED RELOCATION EXPENSES: EFFECT
  TAXED RELOCATION EXPENSES: EFFECT
  BAIL AND PROBATION/BAIL HOSTELS: PLACES
  BAIL AND PROBATION/BAIL HOSTELS: PLACES
  BAIL INFORMATION SCHEMES
  BAIL INFORMATION SCHEMES
  BAILEES: FAILURE TO APPEAR
  BAILEES: FAILURE TO APPEAR
  ROYAL PALACES FIRE PROTECTION INQUIRY: CHAIRMAN'S FEE
  ROYAL PALACES FIRE PROTECTION INQUIRY: CHAIRMAN'S FEE
  INCOME SUPPORT: REJECTED CLAIMS
  INCOME SUPPORT: REJECTED CLAIMS
  URBAN REGENERATION AGENCY: CHIEF EXECUTIVE
  URBAN REGENERATION AGENCY: CHIEF EXECUTIVE